Lemon v. Kurtzman (403 U.S.

602)

(1971)

No. 89

General Rule of Law: The use of public funds to supplement salaries for teachers in parochial schools
is in violation of the “Establishment Clause” within the First Amendment.

Procedure Summary:

Plaintiff/Appellant: Lemon

Defendant/Appellee Kurtzman

District Court of Rhode Island: Dismissed complaint

US Supreme Court: Reversed & remanded

Facts: The state of Rhode Island passed a law to support salaries for teachers in parochial schools. It
included the cost of secular textbooks and other materials. It also stipulated that the teachers receiving
the salary could not teach an ideological viewpoint. Twenty-five percent of the students in Rhode Island
are educated in parochial schools with over 90% of them coming from Roman Catholic Schools. Lemon,
a parent of a public school student, filed suit. His suit was dismissed by the district court for lack of
declaration of relief and that it did not violate the First Amendment “Establishment Clause”. The case
was then appealed to the US Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court held that the cumulative
impact of the law was too burdensome on following the appropriate expenditures associated with the
act. The court indicated that this law was going to “blur” the lines between church and state.

Issues: The issue in this case is the “Establishment Clause” within the First Amendment. Does the use of
public funds for salaries for parochial school teachers violate this clause? While the law was passed with
stipulations on the use of the funds, it created a burdensome and difficult challenge in maintaining
those stipulations. Because the money was public money their needed to be oversight, but in this case
that oversight was deemed to create “excessive entanglement”. The Supreme Court also saw that the
funds would primarily go to one religious entity which would be devisive.

Comments: This is one of the biggest cases that involve the separation of church and state. This case
established a litmus test for public and private entities in using public funds. It established the
parameters by which public funds can be used; it must be used for a secular purpose, it cannot inhibit or
advance religion, and it must be free of “excessive entanglement”. Many people believe the Supreme
Court wanted this decision to head off future issues involving the use of public funds for something
other than a secular purpose.