1

Deidra McDowell
September 24, 2013
EDLD 8431: Higher Education Law

Case Review: TILTON v. RICHARDSON

FACTS:
There are constitutional questions regarding federal aid for church related colleges and
universities under Title I of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, 20 U.S.C. Sections 701-
758, which provides construction grants for buildings and facilities used exclusively for secular
educational purposes. Four church related colleges and universities in Connecticut receiving
federal construction grants under Title I were named as defendants, federal funds were used for
five projects at these four institutions.
Questions include the following:
1) Does the Act reflect a secular legislative?
2) Is the primary effect of the Act to advance or inhibit religion?
3) Does the administration of the Act foster an excessive government entanglement with
religion?
4) Does the implementation of the Act inhibit the free exercise of religion?



2

ISSUE:
Whether Title I of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, 20 U.S.C. Sections 701-758
authorizes aid to such church related institutions, and if so, whether the Act violates either the
Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
ANSWER:
The Court held that only the 20-year limitation portion of the Act violated the Religion Clauses
of the First Amendment. The court argued that subsidizing the construction of facilities used for
non-secular purposes would have the effect of advancing religion. The Court also stated that the
church-related institutions in question had not used their federally-funded facilities for religious
activities, and that the facilities were "indistinguishable from a typical state university facility."
REASONING OF THE COURT:
According to Alexander and Alexander, the Act makes no reference to religious
affiliation or nonaffiliation. Under these circumstances institutions of higher education
must be taken to include church-related colleges and universities. (2011, p.77)
The institutions presented evidence that there had been no religious services or worship
in the federally financed facilities, that there are no religious symbols or plaques in or on
them, and that they had been used solely for nonreligious purposes. (Alexander &
Alexander, 2011, p.77-78)
The government may not subsidize any activities of an institute of higher learning which
in some of its programs teaches religious doctrines. (Alexander & Alexander, 2011,
p.78)
3

The limitation of federal interest in the facilities to a period of 20 years violates the
Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the unrestricted use of valuable property
after 20 years is in effect a contribution to a religious body.
Evidence shows institutions with admittedly religious functions but whose predominant
higher education mission is to provide their students with a secular education.
There is no evidence that religion seeps into the use of any facilities.
CONCLUSION:
In a 5-4 vote, the Court decided that the grants for non-religious school facilities did not violate
the Establishment Clause. The Act does not violate the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment
except that part of Section 754 (b) (2) providing a twenty-year limitation on the religious use
restrictions contained in Section 751 (a) (2).