Editing Lemon v. Kurtzman (section)

==Later use==
{{Anchor|Recent use}}
Conservative justices, such as [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[Antonin Scalia]], have criticized the application of the ''Lemon'' test.<ref name="LambsChapel">{{ussc|name=Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District|volume=508|page=384|pin=398|year=1993|dissent=Scalia}}.</ref> Justice Scalia compared the test to a "ghoul in a late night horror movie" in ''[[Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District]]'' (1993).<ref name="LambsChapel"/>

The Supreme Court has applied the ''Lemon'' test in ''[[Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe]]'' (2000),<ref>{{ussc|name=Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe|volume=530|page=290|pin=|year=2000}}.</ref> while in ''[[McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union]]'' (2005) the court did not overturn the ''Lemon'' test, even though it was urged to do so by the petitioner.<ref>{{ussc|name=McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union|link=|volume=545|page=844|pin=|year=2005}}.</ref>

The test was also central to ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Kitzmiller v. Dover]]'', a 2005 [[intelligent design]] case before the [[United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania]].<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=400 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=707 |court=M.D. Pa.  |date=2005 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/400/707/2414073/ |access-date=2017-11-01 }}</ref>

The [[Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals]] applied the test in ''[[Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump]]'' (2017) upholding a preliminary injunction against [[President Donald Trump]]'s executive order banning immigration from certain majority-Muslim countries.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump |vol=857 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=554 |court=4th Cir. |date=2017 |url=http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/fourth_cir_ruling.pdf |access-date=2017-11-01 }}</ref>

In concurring opinions in ''[[The American Legion v. American Humanist Association]]'' (2019), some of the Court's more conservative justices heavily criticized the ''Lemon'' test. Justice [[Samuel Alito]] stated that the ''Lemon'' test had "shortcomings" and that "as Establishment Clause cases involving a great array of laws and practices came to the Court, it became more and more apparent that the ''Lemon'' test could not resolve them."<ref name="alvaha">''Am. Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass'n'', {{ussc|volume=588|year=2019|docket=17-1717}}. See also:{{full citation needed|date=February 2023}}
* A [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/588/17-1717/#tab-opinion-4111203 "syllabus"] 
* The [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/588/17-1717/#tab-opinion-4111202 Opinion from Alito] ("[This pattern is a testament to the ''Lemon'' test's] "shortcomings"; "as Establishment Clause cases involving a great array of laws and practices came to the Court, it became more and more apparent that the ''Lemon'' test could not resolve them.") 
* The [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/588/17-1717/#tab-opinion-4111200 Concurrence from Gorsuch] ("[''Lemon'' was a] misadventure"<!--not even remotely a quotation! Do better: "[With ''Lemon'' now] "shelved[, little excuse will remain for the anomaly of offended observer standing, and the gaping hole it tore in standing doctrine in the courts of appeals should now begin to close.]-->) 
* The [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/588/17-1717/#tab-opinion-4111199 Concurrence from Thomas] ("[I] would take the logical next step and overrule the ''Lemon'' test in all contexts"; "the ''Lemon'' test is not good law.") 
* The [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/588/17-1717/#tab-opinion-4111198 Concurrence from Kagan] ("Although I agree that rigid application of the ''Lemon'' test does not solve every Establishment Clause problem, I think that test’s focus on purposes and effects is crucial in evaluating government action in this sphere—as this very suit shows.")
* The [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/588/17-1717/#tab-opinion-4111196 Concurrence from Breyer] 
* The [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/588/17-1717/#tab-opinion-4111197 Concurrence from Kavanaugh] ("no longer applies the old test articulated in ''Lemon v. Kurtzman''"; "the Court's decisions over the span of several decades demonstrate that the ''Lemon'' test is not good law and does not apply to Establishment Clause cases")  
* The [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/588/17-1717/#tab-opinion-4111201 Dissent from Ginsburg]</ref> Justice [[Brett Kavanaugh]] noted that the Court "no longer applies the old test articulated in ''Lemon v. Kurtzman''" and said that "the Court’s decisions over the span of several decades demonstrate that the ''Lemon'' test is not good law and does not apply to Establishment Clause cases."<ref name="alvaha" /> Although the Court did not overrule ''Lemon v. Kurtzman'' in ''American Legion v. American Humanist Association'', Justice Thomas stated that he "would take the logical next step and overrule the ''Lemon'' test in all contexts" because "the ''Lemon'' test is not good law."<ref name="alvaha" /> Additionally, Justice [[Neil Gorsuch]] called ''Lemon v. Kurtzman'' a "misadventure" and claimed that it has now been "shelved" by the Court.<ref name="alvaha" /> Justice [[Elena Kagan]], however, defended the ''Lemon'' test, stating that "although I agree that rigid application of the ''Lemon'' test does not solve every Establishment Clause problem, I think that test's focus on purposes and effects is crucial in evaluating government action in this sphere—as this very suit shows."<ref name="alvaha"/>

In ''[[Kennedy v. Bremerton School District]]'' (2022) [[Neil Gorsuch]]'s majority opinion did not explicitly overturn ''Lemon'', but instructed lower courts to disregard ''Lemon'' in favor of a new standard for evaluating religious actions in a public school.<ref>{{cite news |last=Feldman |first=Noah |date=June 27, 2022 |title=Supreme Court Is Eroding the Wall Between Church and State |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/supreme-court-is-eroding-the-wall-between-church-and-state/2022/06/27/197c7cd6-f63c-11ec-81db-ac07a394a86b_story.html |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |accessdate=June 27, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220630041041/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/supreme-court-is-eroding-the-wall-between-church-and-state/2022/06/27/197c7cd6-f63c-11ec-81db-ac07a394a86b_story.html|archive-date=June 30, 2022}}</ref> In ''[[Groff v. DeJoy]]'', {{ussc|600|447|2023}}, in an opinion for a unanimous Court, Justice Alito described ''Lemon v. Kurtzman,'' and thus the ''Lemon'' test, as "now abrogated".<ref>{{cite web |author1=[[Samuel Alito]] |title=Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), Opinion of te Court, slip opinion at page 7 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174_k536.pdf |publisher=[[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240404171330/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174_k536.pdf |archive-date=April 4, 2024 |date=June 29, 2023}}</ref>