Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a landmark decision that invalidated and statutes providing state financial aid to supplement salaries of teachers in nonpublic elementary and secondary schools for secular instructional subjects, holding that such measures violated the of the First Amendment by fostering excessive entanglement with . The consolidated cases arose from challenges to Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Rhode Island's Salary Supplement Act, both aimed at reimbursing sectarian institutions—predominantly religious—for costs of non-religious education amid rising educational expenses. In an unanimous 8–0 ruling authored by Chief Justice , the Court articulated the three-pronged "Lemon test" for assessing compliance: a statute must (1) reflect a secular legislative purpose, (2) have a principal effect that neither advances nor inhibits , and (3) avoid excessive entanglement between and religious institutions. This framework became a foundational tool in subsequent cases, guiding evaluations of actions touching , though it drew criticism for interpretive ambiguity and was ultimately repudiated by the Court in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) as inconsistent with historical practices and original understanding of the Clause.

Historical and Legal Background

Establishment Clause origins and early interpretations

The of the First Amendment, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," originated amid colonial and state-level struggles over religious coercion and taxation to support specific denominations. Influenced heavily by Virginia's experience, drafted the in 1777, which was finally enacted on January 16, 1786, following James Madison's pivotal "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" published in 1785, opposing a proposed tax for Christian teachers. The statute prohibited compulsory support for any religion and barred civil disabilities based on belief, embodying principles of voluntary faith and non-coercion that shaped federal constitutional thought. James Madison, drawing from these state precedents, proposed amendments to the Constitution in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, including language that "nor shall any national religion be established." After congressional debate and revision to emphasize congressional limits, the clause was ratified on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights. Its original public meaning prohibited the federal government from creating or funding a national church, imposing religious tests for office, or coercing citizens to support religion, but permitted federal accommodations for religious practice and did not extend to state actions. Early interpretations by the reinforced the clause's federal scope, with minimal litigation due to limited national involvement in . In (1833), Chief Justice ruled that the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, constrained only the federal government and not the states, a that preserved state autonomy over religious establishments persisting into the early — disestablished in 1818 and in 1833, the last holdouts requiring tax support for . Pre-20th-century cases rarely invoked the clause directly, as federal practices like congressional chaplains and treaty provisions for missionaries aligned with the understanding of non-coercive federal non-establishment rather than strict separation. This era's prioritized preventing a unitary national while allowing voluntary religious expressions in , reflecting founders' intent to avoid European-style establishments without banning public .

Pre-Lemon jurisprudence on aid to religious schools

In the decades preceding Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the U.S. grappled with the Establishment Clause's application to government aid for religious schools, primarily through cases involving indirect support rather than direct financial subsidies. The Court's evolved without a formalized test, emphasizing instead whether aid primarily benefited students or advanced religion. Early rulings, such as Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education (1930), upheld state provision of secular textbooks to private schools, including religious ones, on the grounds that the benefit accrued to children rather than institutions, though this predated full incorporation of the Establishment Clause against the states. Such decisions reflected a permissive view of "" theories, allowing public resources to flow to parochial if tied to secular purposes like safety or basic instruction. The pivotal incorporation of the Establishment Clause to state actions occurred in (1947), where the Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld a law reimbursing parents for bus fares to transport children to parochial schools. Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion invoked Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" metaphor from an 1802 letter, interpreting the Clause to prohibit laws "respecting an establishment of religion" while permitting accommodations akin to the Free Exercise Clause's protections. The ruling extended "no-aid" principles—no taxes to support religion—but justified the reimbursement as a neutral child welfare measure, comparable to or police services, despite dissents arguing it effectively subsidized religious . This established a baseline tolerance for indirect aid that did not directly fund sectarian activities. Subsequent cases reinforced this framework without invalidating aid programs. In Board of Education v. Allen (1968), a 6-3 majority upheld a statute lending free secular textbooks to students in grades 7-12, including those in parochial schools, reasoning that the books conveyed no religious content and the primary beneficiary was the child, not the religious institution. Justice Byron White's opinion distinguished this from impermissible entanglement, noting historical precedents like Everson and emphasizing that restricting aid to public schools only would disadvantage religious students without a compelling constitutional basis. Critics, including Justice in dissent, contended that such loans inevitably advanced religion by relieving parochial schools of costs, but the Court maintained that secular materials did not implicate concerns. These rulings collectively permitted ancillary services—transportation, textbooks, and health measures—while avoiding direct grants to religious entities, setting the stage for scrutiny of more entangled financial schemes in Lemon.

Facts of the Case

Pennsylvania Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act

The Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act was enacted in 1968 to address a financial crisis in the state's nonpublic school system, which educated approximately 20% of 's students at the time, with the vast majority of those schools being religiously affiliated, particularly Roman Catholic. The legislation authorized the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic elementary and secondary schools for actual expenditures incurred in providing secular educational services, aiming to support the state's interest in ensuring a well-educated citizenry without directly funding religious instruction. Under the Act, reimbursements covered teachers' salaries for instruction in designated secular subjects—such as , modern foreign languages, , and —as well as the costs of textbooks and used therein, provided they were approved by the and free of sectarian content expressing religious , doctrines, or . No funds could be allocated for religious courses or materials infused with denominational perspectives, and schools were required to implement separate accounting systems to segregate secular costs, subject to ongoing audits and inspections to verify compliance and prevent diversion to religious purposes. The program effectively made the first state to provide direct financial aid to nonpublic schools for such secular services, with reimbursements calculated based on verified expenditures rather than a fixed per-pupil amount, though capped indirectly by the need to demonstrate secular usage. This structure sought to maintain a wall of separation between state funds and religious activities, but it necessitated continuous governmental oversight into school operations, including review of teacher qualifications and course content to ensure adherence to secular limits.

Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act

The Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act, enacted in 1969, authorized the state to provide direct salary supplements of up to 15% of annual salaries to teachers employed by nonpublic elementary schools for instructing secular subjects such as mathematics, science, and physical education. To qualify, teachers were required to hold state certification, teach exclusively non-religious subjects without incorporating religious materials or doctrine, and work in schools where the average per-pupil expenditure fell below the statewide public school average of approximately $556. The legislation aimed to alleviate a shortage of qualified teachers in nonpublic schools, which educated roughly 25% of Rhode Island's approximately 250,000 schoolchildren, with over 95% of those nonpublic enrollments in Roman Catholic institutions. Payments were disbursed directly to eligible teachers rather than to the schools, with state oversight including annual certifications verifying compliance with secular teaching restrictions and prohibitions on religious advocacy. By early , about 250 teachers in 35 nonpublic schools had received approvals for supplements totaling over $200,000 annually. The act faced constitutional challenge in DiCenso v. Robinson, consolidated with Lemon v. Kurtzman, brought by teachers, parents of students, and taxpayers who argued it violated the First Amendment's by fostering excessive government entanglement with religious institutions. Plaintiffs contended that the salary incentives effectively subsidized , as nonpublic schools' pervasive religious missions made secular instruction difficult to isolate, despite safeguards. A issued a preliminary halting payments in April 1970, prompting appeal to the U.S. .

Supreme Court Decision

Oral arguments and opinions

Oral arguments were heard on March 3, 1971, in the consolidated cases of Lemon v. Kurtzman and Earley v. DiCenso. Henry W. Sawyer III argued for the appellants challenging the statutes on behalf of taxpayers and parents, emphasizing that the Pennsylvania Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act fostered excessive government entanglement with religion through required state audits, textbook approvals, and pupil testing to ensure secular instruction in church-affiliated schools, which were predominantly Catholic and comprised 97% of eligible nonpublic institutions. Sawyer contended the laws lacked a primary secular purpose, as legislative history indicated intent to subsidize parochial education rather than address a genuine statewide educational crisis, and warned that such funding could indirectly advance religion by freeing church resources for doctrinal teaching. Defending the Pennsylvania statute, J. Shane Creamer, the , argued it served a secular legislative purpose by reimbursing actual costs for secular subjects like , sciences, and , addressing an educational shortfall affecting 600,000 students or 25% of Pennsylvania's school-age population. William B. Ball, representing nonpublic schools as an appellee, asserted minimal entanglement, noting state oversight limited to financial audits and cost verification without intrusion into instructional content, and invoked that the programs included safeguards prohibiting religious materials in funded classes. Justices probed the feasibility of monitoring teachers, particularly nuns in habits, to prevent religious influence, and questioned whether reimbursements effectively subsidized religious propagation despite nominal secular restrictions. The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 28, 1971, with Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivering the opinion of the Court, holding both statutes unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause due to excessive entanglement of government with religious institutions. As to the Pennsylvania law, the Court ruled 8–0 that direct reimbursement for teachers' salaries and instructional materials in sectarian schools necessitated ongoing state surveillance, creating a comprehensive, discriminating, and continuing relationship between church and state incompatible with the Clause's aims. Regarding the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act, the Court held 8–1 that supplementing teachers' salaries in nonpublic schools—95% Roman Catholic—risked advancing religion, as the state could not ensure secular teaching without intrusive monitoring of classroom content, even with teachers' oaths and prohibitions on religious materials. Justice Byron R. White concurred in the judgment invalidating the Pennsylvania statute but dissented as to Rhode Island, arguing the salary supplements supported only secular education without establishing religion, provided safeguards were enforced. Justice William O. Douglas filed a separate concurrence underscoring historical precedents against subsidies to religious schools, while Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., also concurred, reinforcing the entanglement concerns. Justice Thurgood Marshall did not participate.

Unanimous ruling and key holdings

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the issued its decision on June 28, 1971, ruling 8–0 that the Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Salary Supplement Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Chief Justice delivered the majority opinion, joined by all participating justices (Justice took no part in the consideration or decision). The key holding was that both statutes created an impermissible risk of excessive entanglement with , as they authorized direct financial aid to sectarian schools—predominantly Catholic institutions—while requiring state oversight to ensure funds were used only for secular purposes. This entanglement arose from the need for ongoing administrative surveillance, including audits, teacher approvals, and restrictions on religious materials or instruction, which the deemed incompatible with the First Amendment's on establishing . The opinion emphasized that such aid, even if nominally restricted to secular subjects like or science, inevitably implicated the state in religious affairs due to the pervasive religious mission of the recipient schools. Justices and William J. Brennan Jr. filed separate concurrences, with Douglas arguing that any state subsidy to religious education advances religion and thus fails under prior precedents like (1947), while Brennan stressed the statutes' failure to maintain a "wall of separation" between church and state. No dissents were filed, underscoring the Court's consensus on invalidating the laws to prevent governmental intrusion into ecclesiastical matters.

Formulation of the Lemon Test

The three-prong criteria

The three-prong test, formulated in Warren E. Burger's , requires that governmental action challenged under the Establishment Clause satisfy each of the following criteria to be deemed constitutional: it must have a secular legislative purpose; its principal or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit ; and it must not foster excessive entanglement with . These prongs were derived cumulatively from precedents such as Walz v. Tax Commission (1970), which addressed exemptions for religious organizations, and Board of Education v. Allen (1968), involving textbook loans to religious , emphasizing that no single factor is dispositive but all must align to avoid constitutional infirmity. The secular purpose prong examines whether the government's objective is genuinely nonreligious, rather than a for advancing faith-based aims; a fails if its purpose is to aid directly, though courts have upheld measures with plausible secular rationales, such as enhancing educational quality in nonpublic . The effects prong assesses the action's primary impact on religious observance or institutions, prohibiting outcomes that symbolically or substantively endorse or disfavor ; this draws from cases like School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963), which struck down mandatory readings for fostering religious advancement. The entanglement prong scrutinizes ongoing administrative or supervisory ties between state and religious entities, deeming them excessive if they require pervasive monitoring, such as auditing sectarian curricula or salaries, which Burger analogized to historical concerns over church-state fusion akin to pre-Revolutionary establishments. Failure on any prong renders the action invalid, ensuring a strict separation without permitting indirect accommodations that blur boundaries.

Rationale and application to the statutes

Warren Burger, writing for the unanimous Court, formulated the three-prong test as a means to operationalize the Establishment Clause's prohibitions against sponsorship, financial support, or active involvement in religious activity, drawing from precedents like Walz v. Tax Commission (397 U.S. 664, 1970), which upheld property tax exemptions for religious organizations but warned against relationships "pregnant with involvement." The test requires statutes to demonstrate a secular purpose, ensure their primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and avoid excessive entanglement, thereby preventing the state from becoming overly enmeshed in matters or fostering along sectarian lines. This framework addresses the inherent risks of public funding to pervasively sectarian institutions, where secular and religious functions are inextricably intertwined, necessitating intrusive oversight that undermines the neutrality demanded by the First Amendment. In applying the test to the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act of 1969, the Court found a valid secular purpose in supplementing teachers' salaries—up to 15% for those teaching secular subjects in nonpublic elementary schools, where approximately 25% of the state's students attended, 95% in Roman Catholic institutions—but invalidated it primarily for excessive entanglement. The statute mandated state approval of teachers, ongoing monitoring to prevent religious instruction, and inspections of instructional materials and school records, creating "a comprehensive, discriminating, and continuing state surveillance" that policed the religious content of classes and risked government intrusion into doctrinal decisions. While the primary effect might not overtly advance religion if restrictions held, the aid's direct infusion into salaries at sectarian schools, combined with annual appropriations tied to compliance verification, engendered an "intimate and continuing relationship between church and state" fraught with potential for divisiveness. The Pennsylvania Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act similarly passed the secular purpose prong by reimbursing nonpublic schools—serving over 535,000 students, predominantly Catholic—for actual expenditures on teachers' salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials in secular subjects like and , aiming to equalize educational quality without funding religious teaching. However, it failed the entanglement prong due to the requisite "audits and bilateral contracts" forcing state evaluation of whether expenditures advanced religion, alongside restrictions prohibiting reimbursement for materials used in religious , which demanded perpetual scrutiny of and ideological neutrality. Burger emphasized that such direct subsidies to church-related entities, unlike general tax exemptions, inevitably required the government to "police the teaching practices" of religious schools, heightening risks of administrative entanglement and politicizing religious differences in a pluralistic . Both statutes thus violated the Establishment Clause by necessitating an ongoing, supervisory role for the state in religious institutions, beyond permissible accommodation.

Criticisms of the Lemon Test

Subjectivity and inconsistency in application

The Lemon Test's prong has been criticized for its inherent subjectivity, as it requires courts to discern whether a government's action lacks a "clearly secular ," often necessitating speculative inquiries into legislative motives that are difficult to verify empirically. This approach invites inconsistent outcomes, as judges may infer religious intent from ambiguous evidence, such as or contemporaneous statements, leading to rulings that hinge on subjective interpretations rather than criteria. For instance, in McCreary County v. ACLU (2005), the invalidated displays partly due to perceived religious inferred from prior county resolutions, applying the prong stringently. The entanglement prong exacerbates this vagueness by demanding assessment of whether government involvement with religion is "excessive," a threshold undefined by quantifiable metrics and prone to judicial discretion. Critics, including Justice , have highlighted how this fosters unpredictability, with Scalia describing the test as a "ghoul in clothing" that produces erratic results detached from constitutional text or history. Lower courts and scholars have noted similar issues, arguing the prong's application varies based on the perceived degree of oversight, such as in funding schemes, without consistent benchmarks for what constitutes excess. Inconsistencies manifest starkly in parallel cases with analogous facts yielding divergent rulings under the test. In (2005), decided alongside McCreary, the Court upheld a monument on Capitol grounds, emphasizing its longstanding, non-coercive presence despite applying Lemon-like factors, while striking down the Kentucky displays for insufficient secular context. This "see-sawing," as termed by legal analysts, underscores the test's failure to provide stable guidance, with outcomes often reflecting justices' differing subjective weights on purpose, effect, and entanglement rather than uniform standards. Justices and later echoed these concerns, decrying Lemon's "hopeless subjectivity" that encouraged results-oriented jurisprudence over predictable constitutional boundaries.

Deviation from originalist and historical understandings

The Lemon Test's requirement of a secular legislative purpose diverged from the historical practice of government actions openly acknowledging religious motivations, as evidenced by early congressional practices such as appointing chaplains and issuing proclamations with religious content, which were not viewed as establishing religion under the Clause. The original public meaning of the Establishment Clause, ratified in 1791, primarily prohibited the federal government from creating a or granting preferential denominational support, while permitting nonpreferential accommodations and aid to religious entities, including ; several states maintained established churches into the early without federal interference, contradicting Lemon's imposition of strict no-aid principles. Critics, including Justice , contended that the test's "excessive entanglement" prong lacked textual or historical basis, as the Clause contains no reference to entanglement and early American governance routinely involved administrative oversight of religious institutions without constitutional objection, such as state funding for religious schools on neutral terms. Scalia described as enabling "wonderfully flexible" but unprincipled outcomes that strayed from tradition, prioritizing abstract judicial balancing over enduring practices like legislative prayer upheld in Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014). This ahistorical abstraction, as later articulated in (2022), fostered inconsistency by elevating separationist interpretations over evidence of the Framers' accommodation of religion in public life, such as George Washington's support for initiatives. Originalist scholars argue that Lemon's framework effectively incorporated a wall-of-separation from Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter—intended for private correspondence rather than constitutional exegesis—elevating it above the Clause's narrower original constraints against coercion or preference, thereby invalidating historically tolerated policies like neutral aid to religious schools prevalent in the Founding era. In contrast to the test's subjective inquiries, historical understandings emphasized preventing denominational favoritism while allowing government to facilitate religious exercise, as seen in the of 1787's encouragement of ", , and " for public welfare. This deviation contributed to rulings perceived as hostile to , diverging from causal realities of the Founding where religious institutions bolstered civic order without federal entanglement threats.

Subsequent Modifications and Applications

Agostini v. Felton and endorsement test integration

In Agostini v. Felton, decided June 23, 1997, the in a 5-4 ruling overruled Aguilar v. Felton (1985), which had invalidated a federal Title I program sending teachers into parochial schools to provide remedial instruction to disadvantaged students due to presumed excessive entanglement with religion. Justice O'Connor's majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, , and , held that no such per se violation occurred, as the program's neutral safeguards—such as secular curricula, teacher training on religious neutrality, and parental opt-outs—prevented indoctrination or administrative overreach. The decision rejected the prior assumption that public employees on religious premises inevitably advanced religion, emphasizing over presumptions in analysis. The Court modified the Lemon test by subsuming the excessive entanglement prong into the primary effects prong, reasoning that entanglement factors—like the nature of the aid, the benefited institutions' pervasively religious character, and ongoing government oversight—should inform whether a program advances or inhibits religion rather than form a separate barrier. As stated in the opinion, "entanglement should be measured by considering the character and purposes of the institutions that are benefited, the nature of the aid provided, and the resulting entanglements between the government and the religious authority," but these are now "aspects of the inquiry into a statute's effect" under Lemon's second prong. This shift discarded rigid presumptions from cases like Aguilar, allowing neutral aid programs to survive scrutiny if they neither indoctrinate nor foster political divisions along religious lines. Integration of the endorsement test occurred by folding its perceptual elements into the effects analysis, drawing from Justice O'Connor's prior concurrences in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) and County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989), which examined whether government action conveys a message of endorsement to a reasonable observer. The Agostini Court evaluated whether Title I services symbolized a church-state union or marginalized nonadherents, concluding they did not, as aid was allocated based on student need irrespective of school affiliation, akin to routine public services like extended to religious buildings. Dissenters, led by Justice Souter and joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, argued this diluted Lemon's protections, risking subtle coercion or favoritism in pervasively sectarian environments. Overall, the ruling made the test more functional, prioritizing actual risks over symbolic ones unless they evidenced endorsement through indoctrination or exclusion.

Evolving use in later cases until abandonment

Following Agostini v. Felton in 1997, which consolidated the Test's purpose and effects prongs while subsuming excessive entanglement within the effects analysis, the framework persisted in select decisions but with mounting inconsistencies and selective application. In Mitchell v. Helms (2000), a plurality opinion upheld federal aid to religious schools for instructional materials, applying the modified Lemon criteria to conclude no primary advancement of religion occurred, as aid reached schools without regard to religious status and parents or schools determined its use. However, even in this case, Justice O'Connor's critiqued the test's subjectivity, advocating a narrower focus on actual diversion to religious , signaling internal tensions. Subsequent rulings revealed diverging approaches, with the Court increasingly bypassing Lemon in favor of contextual or historical inquiries. In (2005), a upheld a display on state grounds without invoking Lemon, emphasizing longstanding tradition and passive public exposure rather than secular purpose or entanglement risks; Justice Breyer's controlling concurrence similarly prioritized historical acceptance over the test's prongs. By contrast, the companion case McCreary County v. ACLU (2005) applied Lemon to invalidate courthouse displays, finding a religious purpose in their evolution from devotional to purportedly historical contexts, underscoring the test's malleability in yielding opposite outcomes for similar monuments. Criticism escalated as justices highlighted Lemon's ahistorical and unpredictable nature. Justice Scalia, in dissents like (1992), had earlier decried it as inviting "chaos" through subjective judicial policymaking detached from the Establishment Clause's original meaning. Justice Thomas consistently urged abandonment for a textualist approach rooted in and denominational favoritism. This shift accelerated in Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), where the majority rejected Lemon for legislative prayer, assessing instead whether practices coerced participation or reflected historical conventions of nonsectarian invocation. Similarly, American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n (2019) dismissed Lemon as "abstract and ahistorical," upholding a longstanding monument via a presumption of for settled symbols tied to war commemoration and national heritage. By the late , Lemon's use had eroded to sporadic, often critiqued applications, paving the way for its formal repudiation. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), while not directly addressing , the Court invoked free exercise principles over strict separationism, further diminishing the test's centrality in funding disputes. Lower courts continued invoking it amid this uncertainty, but precedents increasingly favored "history and tradition" as a more objective benchmark, rendering Lemon effectively obsolete prior to its explicit disavowal in 2022.

Overruling and Replacement

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)

, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), addressed whether a public violated the First Amendment rights of Joseph Kennedy, an assistant coach at Bremerton High in , by disciplining him for praying quietly at the field's 50-yard line immediately after games. Kennedy had engaged in this personal practice for several years, initially inviting athletes to join but later continuing alone following district directives to avoid involvement. The Bremerton suspended him and declined to renew his contract, citing concerns over violations under the test, which required government actions to have a secular purpose, neither advance nor inhibit religion, and avoid excessive entanglement. Kennedy filed suit in 2017, alleging retaliation against his free exercise of religion, free speech, and equal protection rights, as well as violations of the and Title VII. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment to the district, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2019, applying the Lemon framework to conclude that Kennedy's prayers constituted school-endorsed religious activity observable by students. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and, in a 6-3 decision on June 27, 2022, reversed, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing for the majority joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. The Court held that the district's actions infringed Kennedy's rights to free speech and free exercise, characterizing his midfield prayers as private religious observance not fairly attributable to the government, akin to secular conduct like personal cheers or celebrations. It rejected claims of coercion, noting no evidence that students felt pressured to participate, and emphasized that public employees retain First Amendment protections for personal expressions outside their official duties. Central to the ruling's significance for jurisprudence, the majority explicitly repudiated the Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) as an "abstract" and "ahistorical" framework that had engendered inconsistency and departed from the Clause's original meaning. Gorsuch described Lemon as a "misadventure" long ago abandoned in practice, if not always in name, and unfit for resolving disputes over religious expression by public employees. Instead, the Court adopted a test rooted in historical practices and understandings at the founding, asking whether the challenged government action coheres with traditions of permitting or prohibiting similar conduct to prevent into religious observance while accommodating private devotion. This approach, the opinion argued, better aligns with the Clause's text prohibiting from establishing , without extending to hostility toward individual faith. Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan dissented, contending the majority misread the record of Kennedy's public, student-involving prayers and undermined precedents safeguarding schools from perceived endorsement, potentially inviting disruptive religious displays.

Shift to history and tradition test

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, decided on June 27, 2022, the Supreme Court explicitly overruled the Lemon test, determining that it had proven unworkable and inconsistent with the original meaning of the Establishment Clause. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Sotomayor (in part), characterized Lemon as an "abstract" rule that distorted First Amendment analysis by inviting courts to engage in subjective policymaking detached from historical context. Rather than applying Lemon's three-pronged inquiry—requiring a secular purpose, a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and avoidance of excessive entanglement—the Court instructed lower courts to interpret the Establishment Clause through "reference to historical practices and understandings." This history-and-tradition framework evaluates challenged government practices by examining whether they align with longstanding national traditions and the public meanings of the constitutional text at the time of its adoption, particularly during the founding era and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Kennedy, the Court applied this test to uphold a high school football coach's post-game prayers on the field, finding no historical basis for prohibiting such private religious expression by public employees when unaccompanied by coercion of students. The approach rejects Lemon's focus on perceived endorsement or endorsement tests derived from cases like County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), deeming them similarly prone to judicial overreach. By prioritizing empirical historical evidence—such as early congressional practices, state constitutions, and founding-era debates—the test aims to constrain judicial discretion and restore Establishment Clause jurisprudence to its textual and originalist foundations. The adoption of this standard represents a broader doctrinal pivot, paralleling shifts in Second Amendment analysis under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022), where analogous history-and-tradition scrutiny replaced means-ends balancing. Dissenting Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan argued that abandoning risked undermining protections against religious coercion and government favoritism, potentially allowing practices inconsistent with modern pluralism. However, the majority countered that historical inquiry better safeguards against both establishment and infringement on free exercise, as evidenced by the decision's integration of limits with protections under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses. Post-Kennedy applications, such as in challenges to public religious displays or school policies, have emphasized analogical historical precedents over predictive effects on observers. This framework has unsettled prior precedents reliant on , including aspects of aid-to-religion cases like (2002), though the Court has signaled selective retention where historical consistency exists.

Legacy and Impact

Influence on church-state separation doctrine

The Lemon Test, articulated in the 1971 decision, established a three-prong framework—requiring a , a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits , and avoidance of excessive entanglement with —that became the predominant standard for evaluating claims for over four decades. This structure formalized judicial scrutiny of government actions interfacing with religious entities, emphasizing functional analysis over strict textual or historical interpretation, thereby entrenching a doctrinal preference for minimizing perceived religious influence in public affairs. In practice, the test reinforced a separationist interpretation of the Establishment Clause by invalidating numerous programs involving direct or indirect aid to religious institutions, particularly in , where financial subsidies to sectarian schools were deemed to foster impermissible entanglement and potential divisiveness along religious lines. For instance, it guided rulings that prohibited state reimbursement for non-ideological services in parochial schools, underscoring the Court's view that such arrangements blurred the line between civil and ecclesiastical authority, even when aimed at secular goals like teacher salaries for non-religious subjects. This application extended the "wall of separation" metaphor—originally invoked in (1947)—into a more operational barrier, limiting accommodations that might otherwise permit religious participation in publicly funded spheres without coercion. The doctrine's evolution under prioritized avoiding any appearance of endorsement, influencing outcomes in diverse contexts such as public displays of religious symbols and legislative chaplains, where perceived advancement of triggered invalidation regardless of longstanding traditions. While permitting incidental contacts like fire inspections, the entanglement prong heightened sensitivity to ongoing governmental oversight of religious activities, fostering a that often equated neutrality with exclusionary distance rather than even-handed treatment. This framework's dominance until modifications in the 1990s and ultimate repudiation in (2022) marked a pivotal era in which church-state separation was doctrinally construed as requiring proactive judicial intervention to prevent subtle forms of .

Broader effects on education funding and religious liberty

The Lemon test's prohibition on excessive government entanglement significantly curtailed direct state funding for secular instruction in religious schools, invalidating programs in and that supplemented teachers' salaries for non-religious subjects. This ruling extended to subsequent cases, such as Meek v. Pittenger (1975), where the 's provision of and to nonpublic schools under the entanglement prong, citing the need for ongoing state monitoring that risked infringing on religious . Similarly, in Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist (1973), New York's tuition reimbursement and scheme for parents of children—predominantly benefiting religious institutions—was deemed to advance and foster entanglement through required audits and restrictions on fund use. These decisions created a doctrinal barrier to direct aid, compelling religious schools, which educated approximately 10% of U.S. K-12 students as of the , to forgo public resources available to secular counterparts, thereby exacerbating financial strains and limiting expansions in enrollment or facilities. While the test permitted some indirect aid, such as Minnesota's tax deductions for school expenses in Mueller v. Allen (1983), it imposed stringent scrutiny on voucher-like initiatives, delaying widespread adoption until Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) upheld Cleveland's neutral program under a choice-based framework that mitigated Lemon's effect concerns. Prior to this, Lemon's application in cases like Levitt v. Committee for Public Education (1977)—which invalidated reimbursements for teacher-prepared tests in religious schools due to unverifiable secular use—reinforced a pattern of judicial invalidation, reducing per-pupil public support for relative to public schools by an estimated 20-30% in affected states during the and . This funding asymmetry arguably disadvantaged religious institutions' capacity to deliver comparable secular curricula, prompting reliance on tuition hikes and charitable contributions amid rising operational costs. Regarding religious liberty, the entanglement prong engendered pervasive oversight of religious ' operations to prevent fund diversion, which courts viewed as compromising institutional and inviting political interference in doctrinal matters. In educational contexts, this manifested in heightened barriers to public program participation, as seen in restrictions on services or facilities access until modifications like Agostini v. Felton (1997) recast entanglement as less prohibitive for neutral aid delivery. Critics, including dissenting justices in Lemon-era cases, contended that the test's vagueness chilled religious expression and equal treatment, effectively subordinating free exercise interests to rigid separationism and denying religious entities neutral benefits extended to secular ones. Empirical outcomes included reduced religious school viability in low-income areas, where shortfalls correlated with rates 15-20% higher than secular privates from 1971 to 1990, thereby constraining parental and religious upbringing options under the . The test's eventual repudiation in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) alleviated these burdens, enabling a history-and-tradition approach that prioritizes over entanglement fears.

References

  1. [1]
    Alton J. LEMON et al., Appellants, v. David H. KURTZMAN, as ...
    The District Court concluded that the Act violated the Establishment Clause, holding that it fostered 'excessive entanglement' between government and religion.
  2. [2]
    Lemon v. Kurtzman | Oyez
    Mar 3, 1971 · The Pennsylvania statute is unconstitutional under the religion clause of First Amendment for excessive entanglement of state and church.
  3. [3]
    Lemon v. Kurtzman | 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
    The District Court concluded that the Act violated the Establishment Clause, holding that it fostered "excessive entanglement" between government and religion.
  4. [4]
    Amdt1.3.7.1 Abandonment of the Lemon Test
    ... Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971). These three factors were also part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence before Lemon.Footnote Corp. of ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
  5. [5]
    There's No Juice Left in Lemon | Cato Institute
    Jun 22, 2021 · Thus he originated a test for determining when a law violated the Establishment Clause—a test whose prongs are so indeterminate that courts ...
  6. [6]
    Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - Free Speech Center
    Jul 30, 2023 · The 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was the driving force behind the religious clauses of the First Amendment of the U.S. ...
  7. [7]
    James Madison and Religious Liberty | The Heritage Foundation
    The original clause declared that "all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience...." Madison ...<|separator|>
  8. [8]
    Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - Thomas Jefferson's Monticello
    The Statute would go on to play a critical role in the development of American religious freedom and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As James ...
  9. [9]
    Amendments to the Constitution, [8 June] 1789 - Founders Online
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no ...
  10. [10]
    Bill of Rights (1791) | National Archives
    Sep 20, 2022 · Articles 3 to 12, ratified December 15, 1791, by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution ...
  11. [11]
    The Establishment Clause: Its Original Public Meaning and What We ...
    Feb 3, 2021 · Modern times in church-state relations began in 1947 with the Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education.
  12. [12]
    Interpretation: The Establishment Clause | Constitution Center
    Kurtzman (1971). In the years since Lemon, the “test” has been much criticized and the Court often decides Establishment Clause cases without reference to it.
  13. [13]
    Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore | 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
    The plaintiff in error contends that it comes within that clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which inhibits the taking of private property for ...
  14. [14]
    10 The “Second Disestablishment”: The Evolution of Nineteenth ...
    During the revolutionary years until 1833, the states undertook what might be described as a “first disestablishment,” where their official religions were ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ...
    Historical scholarship on the original meaning of the Establish- ment Clause remains influenced by Everson, the Supreme Court's first modern Establishment ...
  16. [16]
    Everson v. Board of Education | 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
    A New Jersey statute authorizes its local school districts to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools.
  17. [17]
    Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing | Oyez
    A case in which the Court held that a New Jersey law granting the parents of both public and Catholic school students reimbursements for riding public ...
  18. [18]
    Board of Education v. Allen | 392 U.S. 236 (1968)
    A law of the State of New York requires local public school authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to all students in grades seven through 12.Missing: 1969 | Show results with:1969
  19. [19]
    Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen - Oyez
    A 1965 amendment to New York's Education Law required public school boards to lend textbooks to elementary and secondary school students enrolled in private ...Missing: 1969 aid religious
  20. [20]
    [PDF] The Pennsylvania Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education ...
    The Pennsylvania Nonpublic Elementary and. Secondary Education Act, signed into law in June 1968, made. Pennsylvania the first State legally powered to give ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  21. [21]
    Lemon v. Kurtzman | Teaching American History
    The district court concluded that the act violated the Establishment Clause, holding that it fostered “excessive entanglement” between government and religion.<|control11|><|separator|>
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Supreme Court of the United-^t
    Apr 2, 1971 · MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER; We will hear arguments next in Number 89; Lemon against Kurtzman and others. Mr. Sawyer, you may proceed ...
  23. [23]
    Amdt1.3.6.1 Lemon's Purpose Prong - Constitution Annotated
    Under Lemon, to be considered constitutional, laws (1) must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) must have a principal or primary effect that neither ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] The Lemon Test and Subjective Intent in Establishment Clause ...
    (1988) "The Lemon Test and Subjective Intent in Establishment Clause Analysis: The ... The Supreme Court's inconsistent application of the "pur- pose ...
  25. [25]
    Reclaiming Religious Liberty by Restoring the Original Meaning of ...
    Sep 25, 2018 · The Lemon Instability. This see-sawing was due to the hopeless subjectivity of the Lemon test. The three prongs—purpose, effects, and ...
  26. [26]
    "The Lemon Test Rears Its Ugly Head Again: Lamb's Chapel v ...
    addition, inconsistent application of the test by the Court, and conflicting ... Lemon test as a workable framework for Establishment Clause analysis.
  27. [27]
    Will the Supreme Court Replace the Lemon Test?
    Mar 11, 2019 · For the last few decades, Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been dominated (some would say “haunted”) by the Lemon test. Under Lemon, a ...
  28. [28]
    Symposium: Three establishment clause paths - SCOTUSblog
    Dec 12, 2018 · The Lemon test is simple to say, but ... Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings.
  29. [29]
    "Lemon v. Kurtzman: Reflections on a Constitutional Catastrophe" by ...
    Nov 1, 2021 · First, it is contrary to the original public meaning of the Establishment Clause. Second, it is simply unworkable as a jurisprudential test.
  30. [30]
    Lamb's Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 ...
    The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can ...
  31. [31]
    Establishment Clause Tests | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law
    The Court said the shortcomings of Lemon's “'ambitiou[s],' abstract, and ahistorical approach to the Establishment Clause” Lemon test were “apparent.” 24 ...
  32. [32]
    The Rise and Fall of the Lemon Test | Agreeing to Disagree
    Sep 15, 2023 · These implications of the Lemon test elevated one purpose of the Establishment Clause—separation of church and state—above individual and ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
  33. [33]
    Let History Repeat Itself: Solving Originalism's History Problem in ...
    The current justices have widely divergent views on the Establishment Clause's meaning, and the Lemon test has been widely panned by several justices.Missing: deviation | Show results with:deviation
  34. [34]
    [PDF] The Establishment Clause: No Longer a Lemon
    The Establishment Clause prohibits Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion. It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an  ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  35. [35]
    RACHEL AGOSTINI, et al., PETITIONERS 96-552 v. BETTY LOUISE ...
    Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985), this Court held that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment barred the city of New York from sending public school ...Missing: integration | Show results with:integration
  36. [36]
    Agostini v. Felton | Oyez
    Apr 15, 1997 · The Court held that there was no evidence to support its former presumption that the entrance of public school teachers into parochial schools ...Missing: Lemon test endorsement integration
  37. [37]
    Agostini v. Felton (1997) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
    Jan 1, 2009 · The Supreme Court held that New York did not violate the First Amendment's establishment clause by administering a federally funded program.Missing: endorsement integration
  38. [38]
    Lemon Test | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
    Oct 17, 2023 · The test was often applied in cases involving prayers at school and state aid to religious schools. By 2022, the Supreme Court had largely ...Missing: financial sectarian
  39. [39]
    Agostini v. Felton - The Court's Modification of the Lemon Test - SSRN
    Jun 28, 2013 · By overruling Aguilar, the Court refashioned the Lemon test in a way that became more accommodating of government interaction with religion.Missing: endorsement | Show results with:endorsement
  40. [40]
    Agostini v. Felton | 521 U.S. 203 (1997)
    Agostini v. Felton: Teachers at public, secular schools can teach at parochial schools if there is no apparent entanglement between government and religion ...Missing: integration | Show results with:integration
  41. [41]
    [PDF] 21-418 Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. (06/27/2022)
    Jun 27, 2022 · The Court overrules Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602. (1971), and calls into question decades of subsequent prec- edents that it deems “offshoot ...
  42. [42]
    Kennedy v. Bremerton School District | Oyez
    Apr 25, 2022 · Kennedy sued the school district for violating his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district ...<|separator|>
  43. [43]
    KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. | Supreme Court | US Law
    S. ___, ___ (plurality opinion). In place of Lemon and the endorsement test, this Court has instructed that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ...
  44. [44]
    Kennedy v. Bremerton School District: The Final Demise of Lemon ...
    Aug 8, 2022 · The so-called Lemon test prohibited any government action that (1) lacks a secular purpose, (2) has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion,Missing: subjectivity | Show results with:subjectivity
  45. [45]
    Kennedy v. Bremerton School District: School Prayer and the ...
    Jun 30, 2022 · Although the Court announced that "Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot" were "abandoned," it has never (including in Kennedy) overruled ...
  46. [46]
    Establishment Clause and Historical Practices and Tradition | US Law
    The Supreme Court has long evaluated Establishment Clause challenges in part by reference to historical understandings of the Clause.<|separator|>
  47. [47]
    https://www.fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/a-cord-of-three-strands-how-kennedy-v-bremerton-school-district-changed-free-exercise-establishment-and-free-speech-clause-doctrine
  48. [48]
    Lemon v. Kurtzman I (1971) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
    Oct 19, 2023 · Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) said the First Amendment prohibited government from providing funds to church-run schools.
  49. [49]
    Application of the Lemon Test | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law
    Since 1971, the Supreme Court has most frequently evaluated financial assistance to religious entities under the Lemon · Lemon ; The Court also applied Lemon ...
  50. [50]
    Vouchers and Financial Aid to Religious Schools
    When aid went directly to religious schools, the Court took a harsher view. In Lemon v Kurtzman (1971), the case giving rise to the famous three-part "Lemon ...
  51. [51]
    The Lemon Test | Pew Research Center
    May 14, 2009 · Finally, the court determined, the programs subsidized religious education because, by providing secular instruction, they allowed the schools ...<|separator|>
  52. [52]
    [PDF] Assessing Agostini v. Felton in Light of Lemon v. Kurtzman
    In effect, the Court was refining its position towards an under- standing of the second half of the Establishment Clause, which deals with the govern- ment's ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  53. [53]
    The End of the Lemon Test - Alliance Defending Freedom
    Sep 12, 2022 · In 1971, the Supreme Court devised a new test for evaluating government actions that might violate the Establishment Clause—the Lemon test. The ...
  54. [54]
    [PDF] The Rise of Public School Prayer with the Demise of Lemon v ...
    May 25, 2023 · The Lemon test was first established in 1971, when the Supreme Court of the United States decided Lemon v. Kurtzman.65 There, writing for ...<|separator|>