33 Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 U.S.

602 (1971)
 Laws that allowed the State to pay for aspects of non-secular,
non-public education in Pennsylvania (Nonpublic Elementary
and Secondary Education Act) and Rhode Island (Rhode Island
Salary Supplement Act).
o The laws were facially-neutral in that they allowed any
parochial private school to apply for reimbursement for
certain expenses (Pennsylvania: teacher salaries, textbooks,
and other instructional materials for secular subjects;
Rhode Island: pay private school teachers a 15% salary
supplement)
 However, the majority of the private schools were
Catholic schools.
 Lemon and others sued, claiming that the use of tax money to
fund religious schools was a violation of the Establishment
Clause of the 1st Amendment.

Issue:
Whether or not the statutes are constitutional.
Whether or not the statutes were a violation of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Ruling:
 The US Supreme Court found both laws to be unconstitutional.
o The US Supreme Court found that the laws did not
discriminate among religions.
 If they did, then they would have to meet strict
scrutiny review.
 See Larson v. Valente (456 U.S. 228 (1982)).
  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:

1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also

known as the Purpose Prong)
2. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not
advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect
Prong)
3. The statute must not result in an "excessive government
entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the
Entanglement Prong)
 Factors.

1. Character and purpose of institution benefited.

2. Nature of aid the state provides.
3. Resulting relationship between government and
religious authority.
If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is
deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 This three-prong test is now known as the Lemon Test.

o It's a pretty malleable test, and the provisions are a bit
vague. It tends to be invoked when the Justices want to
strike down a practice they don't like, and ignored when
judging the merits of a practice they want to uphold.
o While the Lemon Test is still good law, its future is in
doubt. A number of Justices have called for it to be
overruled.
 See Justice Scalia's concurrence in Lamb's Chapel v.
Center Moriches Union Free School District (508 U.S.
384 (1993)).
o In this case, the Court found that both laws were
unconstitutional because they created "excessive
government entanglement between the government and
religion". Excessive entanglement is determined by the
character and purpose of the institution benefited the
nature of the aid given, and the resulting relationship
between the government and church.
o The Court held that both the state statutes in question had
secular legislative purposes because they reflected the
desire of the states to ensure minimum secular education
requirements were being met in the non-public schools.