A_Case_Brief_Lemon v. Kurtzman

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
A Case Brief
Case Title and Facts: In 1971, a case with the title Lemon v. Kurtzman was presented in the US supreme court. The case had facts that, the state reimbursed parochial schools expenses which were associated with children’s education through a Pennsylvania statute. The reimburses meant to cover teachers’ salaries, textbooks and other instructional materials. The Rhode Island had the same statute that repays private educators a 15% salary supplement. The Pennsylvania’s statute was passed in 1968 while that of Rhoda was passed in 1969. The court established a test, the Lemon test, to provide detailed legislation about religion, and it unfolded that a statute must bear a secular legislative purpose. Also, it was stated that the primary effect of a law should not inhibit or advance religion and federal administrations must not get excessively entangled with religions.
Procedural History: Back in 1968, the act, non-public Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was passed in Pennsylvania to allow government fund institutional programs entailing religion-based lessons or activities. Citizens and taxpayers, represented by appellants, thus believed that statute violated the separation of church and government as described in the First Amendments (Russo 34). On the other hand, David Kurtzman claimed that if religion activities were not funded, it would be unconstitutional as it violates freedom of religions by teacher and students.
Issues, Holding, and Reasoning: The question was whether it was constitutional when a State provide financial aid to religious schools to support teaching a secular subject.

The court held the ruling against both the Pennsylvania and Rhoda Island local programs. The reason was that, after assessing the lemon test, the federal government was found to be much involved in the religious affairs, thus violating the constitution. The statute needed comprehensive government control plus oversight programs such as directing how to spend funds, which would cause excessive State entanglement with religious schools. Thus, both laws were found to be unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of First Amendment.
Works Cited
Russo, Charles J. “The Supreme Court and Education Law.” School Business Affairs 83.4 (2017).