Editing Lemon v. Kurtzman

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Missing information|the opinion of the court, as well as its concurring and dissenting opinions|date=June 2022}}{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = Lemon v. Kurtzman
| ArgueDate = March 3
| ArgueYear = 1971
| DecideDate = June 28
| DecideYear = 1971
| FullName = [[Alton Lemon|Alton T. Lemon]], et al. v. [[David Kurtzman|David H. Kurtzman]], Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, et al.; John R. Earley, et al. v. John DiCenso, et al.; [[William P. Robinson III|William P. Robinson]], Jr. v. John DiCenso, et al.
| USVol = 403
| USPage = 602
| ParallelCitations = 91 S. Ct. 2105; 29 [[Lawyers' Edition|L. Ed. 2d]] 745; 1971 [[LexisNexis|U.S. LEXIS]] 19
| Prior = ''Lemon v. Kurtzman'', 310 [[Federal Supplement|F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/310/35/1382234/ 35] ([[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania|E.D. Pa.]] 1969); probable jurisdiction noted, {{ussc|397|1034|1970|el=no}};<br>''DiCenso v. Robinson'', 316 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/316/112/1951443/ 112] ([[United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island|D.R.I.]] 1970); probable jurisdiction noted, consolidated, {{ussc|400|901|1970|el=no}}.
| Subsequent = ''On remand to'' 348 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/348/300/2010361/ 300] (E.D. Pa. 1972), ''affirmed'', {{ussc|411|192|1973}}
| Holding = For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must (1) have a legitimate secular purpose, (2) not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion and (3) not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.
| Majority = Burger
| JoinMajority = Black, Douglas, Harlan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun
| Concurrence = Douglas
| JoinConcurrence = Black, Brennan, Marshall (who filed a separate statement)
| Concurrence/Dissent = White
| LawsApplied = [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. I]]; R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. 16-51-1 ''et seq.'' (Supp. 1970); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, §§ 5601-5609 (Supp. 1971)
| Abrogated = ''[[Kennedy v. Bremerton School District]]'' (2022)
}}
'''''Lemon v. Kurtzman''''', 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the [[Supreme Court of the United States]].<ref name=lemon>{{ussc|name=Lemon v. Kurtzman|volume=403|page=602|pin=|year=1971}}.</ref> 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 to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]].<ref>{{cite web |author=<!--Not stated--> |title=Lemon v. Kurtzman |url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89 |access-date=November 1, 2017 |website=Oyez}}</ref> The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools (mostly [[Roman Catholic|Catholic]]) for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=DiCenso v. Robinson |vol=316 |reporter=F. Supp. |opinion=112 |court=D.R.I. |date=1970 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/316/112/1951443/ }}</ref> 

==''Lemon'' test<!--'Lemon test' redirects here-->==
The Court applied a three-prong test, which became known as the '''''Lemon'' test''' (named after the lead plaintiff [[Alton Lemon]]),<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> to decide whether the state statutes violated the Establishment Clause.<ref name=PewResearch>{{cite web |title=The Lemon Test |date=May 14, 2009 |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/05/14/shifting-boundaries6/ |publisher=Pew Research Center}}</ref><ref name="20100910FirstAmendmentCenterEClause">{{cite web |title=Religious liberty in public life: Establishment Clause overview |url=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx |publisher=First Amendment Center |access-date=May 28, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100905120418/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx |archive-date=September 5, 2010}}</ref><ref name="NYTObitAL">{{cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=2013-05-26 |title=Alton T. Lemon, civil rights activist, dies at 84 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/alton-t-lemon-civil-rights-activist-dies-at-84.html?smid=pl-share |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=2014-08-15}}</ref>  

The Court held that the Establishment Clause required that a statute satisfy all parts of a three-prong test:<ref name=PewResearch/>

* 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.

In the 1985 case ''[[Wallace v. Jaffree]]'', the Supreme Court stated that the effect prong and the entanglement prong need not be examined if the law in question had no obvious secular purpose.<ref name="20201105WVJEncyclopædiaBritannica">{{cite web |author1=Malila N. Robinson |title=Wallace v. Jaffree |url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Wallace-v-Jaffree |publisher=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |access-date=November 5, 2020 |ref=November 5, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201105175148/https://www.britannica.com/event/Wallace-v-Jaffree|archive-date=November 5, 2020}}</ref> In ''[[Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos]]'' (1987) the Supreme Court wrote that the purpose prong's requirement of a secular legislative purpose did not mean that a law's purpose must be unrelated to religion, because this would amount to a requirement, in the words of ''[[Zorach v. Clauson]]'', 343 U. S. 306 (1952), at 314, "that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups." Instead, "''Lemon''<nowiki/>'s 'purpose' requirement aims at preventing the relevant governmental decisionmaker—in this case, Congress—from abandoning neutrality and acting with the intent of promoting a particular point of view in religious matters."<ref>{{cite web |title=Corp. of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987), at 335 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/327/ |publisher=Justia US Supreme Court Center |access-date=November 8, 2020 |date=June 24, 1987}}</ref> The Supreme Court further explained in ''[[McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union]]'' (2005) that" "When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government’s ostensible object is to take sides."<ref>{{cite web |title=McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005), at Part II A |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/844/ |publisher=Justia US Supreme Court Center |access-date=November 8, 2020 |date=June 27, 2005}}</ref>

The act at issue in ''Lemon'' stipulated that "eligible teachers must teach only courses offered in the public schools, using only materials used in the public schools, and must agree not to teach courses in religion." Still, a three-judge panel found 25% of the State's elementary students attended private schools, about 95% of those attended Roman Catholic schools, and the sole beneficiaries under the act were 250 teachers at Roman Catholic schools.

The Court found that the parochial school system was "an integral part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church", and held that the Act fostered "excessive entanglement" between government and religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause.<ref name=lemon/>

{{blockquote|Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion.<ref name=lemon/>}}

===''Agostini v. Felton'' modification===

The ''Lemon'' test was modified,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hr/Religion.htm|title=Freedom of Religion|website=www.lincoln.edu|publisher=[[Lincoln University (Pennsylvania)]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200524013011/http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hr/Religion.htm|archive-date=May 24, 2020|access-date=May 28, 2020}}</ref> according to the [[First Amendment Center]], in the 1997 case ''[[Agostini v. Felton]]'' in which the U.S. Supreme Court combined the effect prong and the entanglement prong. This resulted in an unchanged purpose prong and a modified effect prong.<ref name="20100910FirstAmendmentCenterEClause" /> As the First Amendment Center notes, "The Court in ''Agostini'' identified three primary criteria for determining whether a government action has a primary effect of advancing religion: 1) government indoctrination, 2) defining the recipients of government benefits based on religion, and 3) excessive entanglement between government and religion."<ref name="20100910FirstAmendmentCenterEClause" />

==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>

==See also==
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 403]]
* [[Sherbert v. Verner#Sherbert Test|Sherbert Test]]
* [[Endorsement test]]
* ''[[Lee v. Weisman]]'' (1992)
* ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' (M.D. Pa. 2005)
* ''[[Summers v. Adams]]'' (D.S.C. 2009)

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite book |title=The Constitution & Religion: Leading Supreme Court Cases on Church and State |last=Alley |first=Robert S. |year=1999 |publisher=Prometheus Books |location=Amherst, NY |isbn=1-57392-703-1 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/constitutionreli0000unse/page/82 82–96] |url=https://archive.org/details/constitutionreli0000unse/page/82 }}
* {{cite journal |last=Kritzer |first=Herbert M. |author2=Richards, Mark J. |year=2003 |title=Jurisprudential Regimes and Supreme Court Decisionmaking: The ''Lemon'' Regime and Establishment Clause Cases |journal=Law & Society Review |volume=37 |issue=4 |pages=827–840 |doi=10.1046/j.0023-9216.2003.03704005.x}}

==External links==
*{{Wikisource-inline|Lemon v. Kurtzman|''Lemon v. Kurtzman''}}
*{{caselaw source
 | case =''Lemon v. Kurtzman'', {{ussc|403|602|1971|el=no}}
 | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/602
 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/108380/lemon-v-kurtzman/
 | findlaw =https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/403/602.html
 | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6993086659963510613
 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/602/
 | openjurist =https://openjurist.org/403/us/602
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep403/usrep403602/usrep403602.pdf
 }}

{{US1stAmendment Establishment Clause Supreme Court case law}}

[[Category:Establishment Clause case law]]
[[Category:United States education case law]]
[[Category:Legal history of Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:1971 in United States case law]]
[[Category:1971 in religion]]
[[Category:1971 in Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:1971 in education]]
[[Category:Legal tests]]
[[Category:Catholic schools in Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court]]
[[Category:Religious policy]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]