Are you an EPFL student looking for a semester project?
Work with us on data science and visualisation projects, and deploy your project as an app on top of GraphSearch.
Concept
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Summary
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–0 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman) from 1968 was unconstitutional and in an 8–1 decision that Rhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools (mostly Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials. Lemon was a major precedent in federal and local courts until it was effectively overturned by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District in 2022.
The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon), which details legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:
The "Purpose Prong": The statute must have a secular legislative purpose.
The "Effect Prong": The principal or primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
The "Entanglement Prong": The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. Factors to be considered include:
The character and purpose of institution benefited.
The nature of aid the state provides.
The resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
If any of these prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the 1985 case Wallace v. Jaffree the Supreme Court further stated that the effect prong and the entanglement prong do not need to be examined, if the law in question doesn't have an obvious secular purpose. In Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v.
Official source
About this result
This page is automatically generated and may contain information that is not correct, complete, up-to-date, or relevant to your search query. The same applies to every other page on this website. Please make sure to verify the information with EPFL's official sources.