Article VI, Sec 29 (2)

Lemon vs Kurtzman
June 28, 1971

FACTS: The state of Pennsylvania passed the Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary
Education Act) that allowed the local government to use money to fund educational programs that
taught religious-based lessons, activities and studies. As such, Pennsylvania instructor Alton Lemon filed
a case against David Kurtzman, who was the acting Superintendent of the Department of Public
Instruction in the State of Pennsylvania, as he believed that that preferential treatment of services that
are rooted in religion is a direct violation of the Separation between Church and State as contained in
the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. He alleged that the government is not allowed to
place the interest of any organization or institution above the interests of the general population. Using
these Amendments, Lemon believed that the state of Pennsylvania unfairly funded religious programs
that did not appeal to the state’s general population.

ISSUE: Whether or not a statute that provides state funding for non-public, non-secular schools violate
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

HELD: Yes, the Supreme Court of the United States found that the passing of any state laws that
establish a religious body is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. The Court held that a
statute must pass a three-pronged test in order to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. The statute
must have a secular legislative purpose, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither
promotes nor inhibits religion, and it must not foster “excessive government entanglement with
religion.” The Court held that both the state statutes in question had secular legislative purposes
because they reflected the desire of the states to ensure minimum secular education requirements were
being met in the non-public schools. The Court did not reach a holding regarding the second prong of
the test, but it did find that the statutes constituted an excessive government entanglement with
religion. Government financial involvement in such institutions inevitably leads to “an intimate and
continuing relationship” between church and state. The Court also noted the potential political
implications of public funding, as there is a risk of religious issues becoming politically divisive.
Wallace vs Jaffree
472 U.S. 38 (1985)

FACTS: Ishmael Jaffree, on behalf of his three children, all of whom attended public schools in Mobile
county, Alabama, sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction restraining the defendants—
members of the county’s school board, various school officials, and the children’s three teachers—from
“maintaining or allowing the practice of regular religious prayer services or other forms of religious
observances.” The complaint stated that the children had experienced acts of religious indoctrination
and that teachers led their classes in saying daily prayers, despite Jaffree’s repeated requests that the
religious activities be stopped. The complaint it contested the constitutionality of three state statutes—
the first (1978) of which created a minute of silence for meditation; the second (1981), and the one that
drew the most legal attention, added the option of voluntary prayer; and the third (1982) authorized
teachers to recite a prayer with “willing students.”

ISSUE: Whether or not the Alabama law violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?

HELD: Yes. In Lemon v. Kurtzman), the court held that, first, a statute must have a secular legislative
purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion;
and, finally, a statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” If a statute
lacks an obvious secular purpose, the second or third points do not need to be reviewed. In applying the
Lemon test, the Supreme Court found that the 1981 statute did not have a secular purpose and instead
was enacted for the sole purpose of endorsing school prayer at the start of every school day, in violation
of the established principle of government neutrality toward religion. Using similar reasoning, the court
also struck