*1 S90 church and state.”
“maintaining high a wall between very (WD 1973). F. Mo. enforce Supp. 364 383 The 376, many separation could in instances ment of church-state interest, but Everson it would be a valid state after to busing be difficult to assert that refusal to extend parochial children, legiti school without furthers a more, avoiding entangle mate state in church-state interest contrary, public ments. On the the of welfare “benefits legislation” help parents a “general program to —here safely their childen get expeditiously . . . and to and schools,” Everson, supra, from accredited at 18— 16, seem be seeking to denied because are certain students religious training. supporting Without a interest valid the different public paro treatment accorded school and school students, chial that classification would violate equal protection federal principles. Moreover, the arbi trariness of the of general public denial a service raises question the whether the State has become the “ad not versary” of the religion and placed ap has burdens on pellants’ free rights. exercise
I would probable jurisdiction note and set this case for argument.
No. 73-1718. Franchise Tax Board of California et al. v. United for Americans et Public al. Schools Affirmed appeal on from D. C. N. D. Cal.
Mr. White, joined Justice by The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Rehnquist, dissenting.
The District Court struck down the California statute providing state income-tax taxpayers reductions for send their ing children nonpublic to schools. The Court sum marily affirms judgment. this For the reasons stated in my dissent in Committee Public Education & Re for ligious Liberty Nyquist, v. 413 U. S. 813-824 756, (1973), I disagree and respectfully dissent.