*1 WOLMAN WALTER et al. et al. Argued April 25, No. 76-496. 1977 Decided June *3 J., judgment announced the Blackmun, the Court and delivered opinion VIII, respect I, V, VI, VII, the Court with in and Parts I, Burger, which JJ., joined; and in Stevens, which to Part Stewart J., JJ., C. joined; and Brennan, Marshall, and also in which as Powell, V, Burger, J., joined; to Part JJ., C. and Marshall and also in Powell, VI, Burger, J., which J., joined; as to Part in Powell, C. and also which VIII, joined; as to JJ., Parts VII and also and Marshall, and Brennan respect III, IV, J., opinion II, an C. Burger, to Parts and in which part. joined. Burger, and JJ., J., and C. dissented in Powell, Stewart J., post, p. J., post, p. J., Brennan, 256, and Marshall, Stevens, 255, part. concurring part dissenting in opinions in and 264, post, p. filed judgment opinion part, in the J., concurring concurring filed an Powell, JJ., post, p. 262. and dissenting part, Rehnquist, part, and White dissenting part, part concurring judgment in and in the filed statement post, p. 255. appellants. the cause argued
Joshua J. Kancelbaum Karl, M. Donald him on the briefs were Nelson G. With Joel Gora. Robiner, and M. Martin, Ohio, Attorney General
Thomas V. Assistant With him on appellees. cause for the state argued the Lawrence Brown, Attorney General, J. brief were William Young appellees the cause argued H. J. Braun. David Killer.* P. With him on the brief was David Grit et al. Court opinion delivered Blackmun Justice Mr. opinion I, VI, VII, VIII), together with (Parts V, in which The Chief (Parts II, IV), Justice, III, Mr. joined. Powell Stewart, Mr. Justice Justice recurrent issue presenting case still another This Clause imposed the Establishment the limitations Four- by the Amendment, applicable First made the States Pittenger, Meek Amendment, U. S. teenth elementary on church-related (1975), state aid taxpayers secondary Appellants citizens schools. *4 Ohio provisions of They challenge all but one of the Ohio. Wulf, by urging Melvin L. of amici curiae reversal were filed *Briefs Meyer Eisenberg League of Forster, Arnold and for the Anti-Defamation by for Public B’rith; Leo for the National Coalition B’Nai Pfeffer Liberty. Religious Education and Quintrell 21 Ohio filed brief for A. and Thomas V. Chema a Thomas urging Independent as amici curiae affirmance. Schools memorandum for the United States McCree filed a Solicitor General by Richland filed W. Bernard Briefs of amici curiae were amicus curiae. by Schwartz, Andrew M. Fish- city York; Leonard J. for the of New Philip Baptists in Ohio man, for the State Convention Dunson et al.
233 Rev. § Code 3317.06 (Supp. 1976) Ann. which authorize various forms of aid. The appellees Superin- are the State tendent of Public Instruction, the State Treasurer, the State Auditor, Board of Education of City School District Columbus, Ohio, and, at their representative certain request, potential beneficiaries of the statutory A program. three- judge court was convened. It held the statute constitutional respects. all 417 Essex, (ND Wolman v. Supp. F. 1976). Ohio probable noted jurisdiction. We 429 U. S. (1977).
I Section 3317.06 was May enacted after this Court’s decision Pittenger, Meek supra, obviously an attempt conform to decision.1 The teachings appellees state acknowledged so argument. at oral Tr. of Oral Arg. 21. outline, broad the statute authorizes the provide nonpublic State to instruc- books, tional materials and testing standardized equipment, scoring, diagnostic services, therapeutic trip and field services, transportation.
The initial appropriation by biennial Legislature the Ohio implementation of the statute was the sum of $88,800,000.2 decided, appeal At the time Meek pending was was from before us judgment holding a District Court predecessor constitutional Ohio providing Essex, statute aid to schools. Wolman v. No. (SD July 1, Ohio, 1974). 73-292 judgment This Court vacated that light remanded the case for further consideration in of Meek. 421 U. S. (1975). remand, order, On the District Court entered a consent dated Novem- 17, 1975, declaring predecessor statute,' ber which then had been repealed, Amendments, violative of First and Fourteenth but reserv- ing constitutionality on legislation. Ap- decision of the successor pellants, plaintiffs original suit, were in the who then shifted their chal- lenge present, to the successor statute. 10, 1975, single judge On December a of the District Court entered temporary enjoining restraining order expending any defendants from *5 public to paid the State’s App. appropriated Funds so are 27. by All disburse- expended them. school districts and are then their respect nonpublic to ments made public schools, equivalents in disbursements may not nonpublic schools expended per pupil amount expended per pupil amount schools. exceed 1974-1975 year school parties stipulated during that these, Of nonpublic schools were 720 chartered Ohio. there nonpublic More than all but were sectarian. 96% and more than schools, enrollment sectarian attended 92% Id., stipu- It was 28-29. also attended Catholic schools. representative officials of they called, if were that, lated operate under testify Catholic such schools schools would that most of their supervision bishop diocese; of the general within the Catholic principals members of a order religious are are one-third the teachers Church; that a little less than probability “in all orders; members of such religious faith”; of the Catholic majority the teachers are members hallways in schools are many and that rooms these Id., symbol. át 30-33. All such decorated with a Christian required meet subjects to the State’s schools teach secular five-hour day minimum The state-mandated standards. hour of expanded include, usually, religious one-half in- to not the Catholic Pupils struction. who are members faith or participate classes to required religion attend to required no teacher is exercises or activities, part the secular teach doctrine as a courses Ibid. taught the schools. parties stipulated if officials, also by testify none of the schools covered would
called, pupils or in hiring statute in the admission of discriminate any aspect Record, implementing or of 3317.06. 10. funds otherwise Doc. § February parties, three-judge 13, 1976, On court consent restraining permit expend defendants funds modified order parents necessary to them to purchase textbooks lend their pursuant (A). Record, Doc. 3317.06 §
of on teachers the basis of or race, creed, color, origin. national Id., at 29.3 District Court concluded:
The stipulations of
“Although parties evidence sev significant eral points distinction, the character of these is substantially comparable schools to that of schools Kurtzman, Lemon involved 403 U. 615- 602, S. 618 .. (1971).” . F. 1116.4 Supp.,
II The of analysis questions mode Clause Establishment by three-part defined test has emerged from reading We this be which, take a of 3317.06 the command § form, provides: somewhat less clear
“Health and equipment remedial services and instructional materials and provided for pupils pursuant the benefit nonpublic this sec- tion and the pupils pro- admission of be such schools shall vided race, creed, color, origin without distinction as to or national such or of their teachers.”
See also
secondary schools. The Court said in Lemon: process inculcating “This is, course, doctrine enhanced impressionable age pupils, primary particularly.” 403 U. See Richardson, also Tilton v. 672, (plurality 403 U. S. 684-689 opinion); Maryland Roemer v. Bd., Public Works 736, (1976). 426 U. S. 764--765 must muster, a statute pass order Court’s decisions. principal have a purpose, must legislative have a secular inhibits religion, nor neither advances primary effect that entanglement with government excessive must foster an Bd., Public Works Maryland Roemer v. religion. See Public Education v. Committee (1976); U. S. *7 Kurtzman, (1973); 772-773 Lemon Nyquist, 756, 413 U. S. 612, 613 (1971). 602, 403 U.S. no with the present difficulty case we have first In the
. chal- test. We are satisfied that three-part the prong this in protecting Ohio’s lenged legitimate statute reflects interest youth a providing of its fertile educational health isAs for of the State.5 environment all schoolchildren analytical difficulty our do with cases, has to usual entanglement effect and criteria. again here, do acknowledged before, and we
We so separation the wall of be maintained between must barrier blurred, church and state “is a and variable indistinct, particular relation- depending on all the circumstances of a Lemon, Court’s ship.” Nonetheless, at S., 403 U. Nyquist, firmly rooted,” become precedents numerous “have We provide guidance. now substantial at from rules therefore turn to the task derived applying provisions our respective decisions statute issue.
Ill Textbooks expenditure of funds: Section 3317.06 authorizes the purchase To textbooks as have been “(A) such secular for by public instruction approved superintendent explicitly provides: 3317.06 Section services, materials, equipment for use “No school shall or district any courses, exercises, religious training, or other devotional religious activity.” public
use in schools in and to loan state text- such pupils books to attending nonpublic schools within the district or parents. to their Such loans shall be based upon requests individual by submitted such nonpublic school or parents. requests Such shall be sub- mitted public to the local school in which district nonpublic school is located. Such requests individual loan shall, textbooks administrative conven- ience, be submitted the nonpublic pupil school or his parent to the school which prepare shall submit collective summaries of requests the individual local school district. As used in this section, any 'textbook’ means book or book substitute which a pupil uses as a text or text particular substitute class program in the he regularly attends.” parties’ stipulations reflect operation pro- of the textbook gram accord the dictates of the In addition, statute. *8 it stipulated: was
“The textbooks nonpublic secular used in schools will be the same as textbooks in public used schools of Common suppliers will supply state. used to to both nonpublic books App. and school pupils.” “Textbooks, including book under substitutes, provided this Act shall be workbooks, limited reusable books, manuals, whether bound or in looseleaf intended form, principal for use as a of study source for given material a class or group students, copy expected a of which is to be pupil available for the individual use of each Id., class or group.” such system
This loan of textbooks to individual students resemblance striking systems bears a to the approved in Allen, Education Board S. 236 v. (1968), U. and only Pittenger, (1975).6 Indeed, Meek S.U. statute challenged is by appellants distinction offered Appel- “any or book substitute.” defines “textbook” book as auxiliary include might lants “book substitute” argue a constitu- they may not that, equipment assert, and materials argu- We find this tionally VII, be loaned. Part See infra. treatment separate ment the statute’s light untenable (B) in its subsections equipment and instructional materials as defining textbooks stipulation (C), light of the Appel- or manuals.” workbooks, to books, “limited reusable of the the intent stipulation lants shows claim that sois that the statute Department App. 49, of Education, assist- of the vague against as to to insure sectarian abuse fail Lemon, Meek, at ance U. programs, citing S., to doubt the grounds, 619. We find no however, that the Board of or to fear statute, Education’s reading subterfuge. read, Board As using stipulations as were abuse provides protections against statute the same provided in the under consideration programs textbook Allen and in Meek. Allen appellants urge we alternative, overrule conclude we Accordingly,
and Meek. This we decline do. (A) § 3317.06 is constitutional. IV Testing Scoring Section 3317.06 expenditure authorizes of funds: To
“(J) supply by pupils attending use schools within tests such standardized district *9 Meek, As provides separate was the case the Ohio Code in sections in public for the nonpublic loan of school textbooks to school children and by (1972). children. The former covered Ohio Ann. 3329.06 is Rev. Code § Meek: long Court “So program observed in as the textbook loan schoolchildren, public private includes all in well as in those those schools, significance it is no general program constitutional whether the is codified in one or two.” statute at 360 8. n.
scoring public services as are in use schools of the state.”
These tests “are used to measure the progress students in subjects.” secular App. Nonpublic personnel 48. are school not involved either or drafting scoring tests. Supp., F. at 1124. The statute does any pay- not authorize nonpublic ment to school personnel for the costs of adminis- tering the tests.7
In Levitt v. Committee
Public Education,
“No financial is aid involved Ohio. The tests themselves are Appellees Brief for State by private appellees:
As summarized “The nothing teacher-prepared new Ohio Act has to do with It tests. money does not reimburse testing. costs incurred in No flows parent. simply to the nonpublic public It permits school the local nonpublic districts to send the standardized achievement test to the arrange grading schools and to of those tests the commercial publishing organizations prepare grade which standardized achieve- Appellees ment tests.” Brief for et al. 53. Grit Further, expenditures approves the statute for “such standardized scoring are in the public tests services as use in schools of the state.” may read expend this to mean that the school per We districts more pupil providing testing they standardized to the schools than expend providing testing such in the schools. 8“Yet, despite obviously integral testing role of such in the total teaching process, attempt statute, no made under the and no means are available, internally prepared assure tests are free of instruction. ignore the
“We cannot substantial risk that examinations, pre- these *10 and a substantial the State question no that has There is ade an youth receive its insuring that interest legitimate The State Id., n. 7. at 479-480, secular education. quate the to fulfill State’s utilized that are that schools may require of certain standards meet requirement compulsory-education may Allen, 245, 246, 7,n. 392 U. at instruction, S., the to State’s ensure both examine teachers at Levitt, S., 413 U. being is fulfilled. interest legitimate Cf. App. 28. Lemon, 614. See at 7; S.,U. 479-480, n. Sisters, (1925). Under 510, 534 268 U. Society Pierce v. S. of both schools provides the issue, at the State the section mini ensuring with the means the school district does not con met. mum standards are This serves the test or its result. content of trol part religious teaching, test as prevent use present found religion of direct aid to thus avoids that kind to control Similarly, inability of the school in Levitt. gives rise supervision for the the need test eliminates institutions, authority will by under pared teachers otherwise, unconsciously students or inculcate eye, an drafted with sponsoring church. do not 'assume religious precepts of the We any guilty bad faith conscious parochial will be teachers in imposed statute and the First design limitations to evade the Kurtzman, S., potential at But the 403 U. 618. Amendment.’ Lemon v. is situation,’ in the and because of that State conflict 'inheres activity constitutionally compelled state-supported is to assure that id., used at 619. Since being not indoctrination. See here, under do we are with no choice has failed to so left State Nyquist impermissible Chapter to hold that 138 constitutes aid but religion; this will be secular functions is so because the aid that devoted to Levitt, separable from aid to sectarian activities.” identifiable 413 U. system provided funding
The New York at issue Levitt for both any teacher-prepared testing. and standardized Court did not reach testing, insepara- regarding funding for it found its issue standardized Id., funding teacher-prepared testing. ble from the unconstitutional *11 excessive entanglement. We therefore agree with the District conclusion (J) § Court's 3317.06 is constitutional.
V Diagnostic Services Section 3317.06 expenditures authorizes of funds:
“(D) provide To speech hearing diagnostic serv- pupils ices to attending nonpublic the schools within district. Such provided service shall nonpublic be in the school attended by pupil the receiving the service.
“(F) provide To diagnostic to psychological services pupils attending nonpublic schools within the district. Such services provided in by shall be the school attended pupil the the receiving service.” It speech will be observed that psycho- these and hearing and logical diagnostic services to the provided axe within nonpublic school. It is stipulated, however, per- (with exception sonnel of physicians) perform who services employees the local board of education; may physicians be hired on a contract basis; purpose that the these services to pupil’s determine deficiency need of assistance; and that treatment any defect so found would place nonpublic take off school premises. App. 37-38. Part See VI, infra.
Appellants assert that funding these is con- services stitutionally impermissible. They argue speech that the provides: Section 3317.06 also provide “No school district shall health or nonpublie remedial services to as authorized this section unless such services are available pupils attending schools within the district.” impose We understand this restriction quantitative a as well as a qualitative limit on aid to health and remedial services. conversation with might in unrestricted
hearing engage staff separate religious might fail on pupil and, occasion, They further assert responsibilities. from instruction secular diagnosti- psychological between the communication opportunity impermissible pupil cian will intrusion of influence. dangers insubstantial District Court found these so Supp., to render statute unconstitutional. F. contain 1121-1122. We This decisions agree. Court’s of health serv- provision common that the thread the effect *12 not nonpublic public ices to all and —does schoolchildren — In Lemon v. primary aiding religion. effect of Kurtzman, Court stated: Education, 330
“Our from Everson Board decisions [v. to permitted 1 the States U. S. to Allen have (1947),] or neutral, secular, church-related schools Bus trans- facilities, materials. nonideological services, services, and lunches, public school health portation, were in to all students supplied secular textbooks common 403 the Establishment Clause.” thought to offend S., added). (emphasis U. at 616-617 Pittenger, Meek 421 U. n. See also 364, challenging in not sub- Indeed, appellants recognize this fact publicly authorizes funded (E) section the statute that in non- optometric services and physician, nursing, dental, perceive drawing schools.10 We no basis for different speech and serv- respect diagnostic hearing conclusion with psychological services. diagnostic ices portion Meek unconstitutional a of a the Court did hold Pennsylvania at issue there that authorized certain statute expend Section 3317.06 authorizes local school district funds: nursing, dental,
“(E) provide physician, optometric To services pupils attending nonpublic schools within the district. Such shall services nonpublic pupil receiving provided in school attended school the service.”
auxiliary instruction, services—“remedial and accelerated guidance speech serv counseling hearing testing, Id., premises. ices”—on school at 367. The Court might noted that or guidance the teacher counselor “fail on separate occasion to religious instruction the advance ment of beliefs from responsi his secular educational Id., bilities.” at 371. The Court of the view that was publicly employed depart teacher or guidance might counselor from religious neutrality “performing impor because he was tant educational services schools which education is an integral part of the sectarian mission and which dominant atmosphere of religious dedicated the advancement constantly belief is maintained.” The statute was held Ibid. entanglement unconstitutional on grounds, namely, order to insure auxiliary that the teachers coun guidance neutral, selors remained have to engage State would continuing Id., premises.11 on the surveillance Marburger, See also Public Public Funds Schools v. F. Supp. (NJ 1973), summarily aff’d, (1974). S. 961 The Court in Meek explicitly stated, provi that the however, sion diagnostic speech and hearing by Pennsylvania services “to seemed fall of general within class welfare services *13 for may provided by children that regardless the of State incidental to benefit accrues that schools.” church-related auxiliary-services program The Court also a mentioned had potential generating political continuing serious for and divisive conflict religion. S., over the of aid diagnostic- issue to at 372. The Ohio U. First, program, contrast, unlikely services is to a similar effect. text, quite as is program discussed the Ohio is unlike Meek’s auxiliary-services program susceptible in that it so is not the intrusion likely involving sectarian overtones. Since it is not to be seen as aid any controversy religion, provokes religion. it not on focus will fact, religious controversy generated it hard to is believe would be Second, the offer uniform health for all services schoolchildren. diagnostic-services program is much more than Meek modest program. potential arousing political Its for controversy is thus corre spondingly reduced. was of such services provision n. from found unseverable was only because it
invalidated Ibid. of the statute. portions unconstitutional to be different services considering diagnostic The reason for diag- apparent. readily is counseling First, teaching from noor have little teaching or counseling, services, unlike nostic closely with the associated content and educational Accordingly, nonpublic school. mission of educational intrusion public diagnostician allow the any pressure on the diagnosti- Second, is reduced. greatly views sectarian contact child, limited contact and cian has objective testing professional chiefly the use and involves The nature students in need of treatment. methods detect pupil relationship diagnostician between the and the of the provide opportunity for the transmission does not same teacher relationship between views as sectarian attends or that between counselor student. and student on conclude that services providing diagnostic We premises impermissible will not create It that there fostering ideological views. follows risk no not be surveillance, need for excessive and there will impermissible therefore entanglement. We hold (D) (F) §§ are constitutional. 33.17.06
VI Therapeutic Services (H), (K) expendi- authorize (G), (I), 3317.06 Sections remedial therapeutic, guidance, of funds for certain tures having who have been identified as services students specialized providing attention.12 Personnel need serv- expenditures of authorize funds: The sections hearing “(G) psychological speech therapeutic To attending nonpublic schools within the district. Such services to *14 school, public centers, provided public in in or in the services shall be nonpublic by as premises determined the units located off of the mobile employees ices must of the be local board education or Department under contract with State of Health. the performed only public services in schools, public are be in or in mobile units off centers, nonpublic located the school premises. App. parties 42. The stipulated: “The de- termination to whether programs as these would be offered in public public the or school, center, depend mobile will unit on the public nonpublic distance between the the school, safety factors in involved travel, adequacy accom- public public modations in schools and centers.” Ibid. department state provided public of education. If such services in centers, transportation school in public or to and from such facilities shall provided by public be in nonpublic school which the district school is located.
“(H) provide guidance counseling To pupils services to attending nonpublic provided schools within the district. Such services shall be in public centers, school, public in or in mobile units located off by nonpublic premises department as determined the state of education. If provided public such services are in the public or in centers, transportation provided from by to and such facilities shall be public nonpublic school district in which the school is located.
“(I) To remedial services to attending nonpublic schools provided within the district. Such services shall be public in the school, in public centers, in mobile or units located off of nonpublic premises by department determined state of education. If such services are provided public public in the school or in centers, transportation to and provided by from such facilities shall be public school district nonpublic which the school is located.
“(K) provide programs deaf, blind, emotionally for the disturbed, To physically handicapped crippled, and children attending nonpublic schools provided within the district. Such services shall be public school, in the centers, public or in mobile premises units located off nonpublic by department as determined state of education. If such services are school, public public provided centers, transportation to and provided public from such facilities shall school district nonpublic which the school is located.” equal for the schools must be services at least to those 9, supra. schools. n.
offered See *15 Appellants provision concede that the of remedial, thera- peutic, guidance in public schools, public centers, services , or mobile units is if public constitutional both school students simultaneously. are served Appel- Brief for lants 41-42, 46.13 Their is challenge limited the situation facility where a only nonpublic is used to service school stu- dents. They argue any that the sec- program that isolates tarian is impermissible employee public the because providing the service tailor his might approach to reflect and reinforce ideological view of the attended sectarian school by claimed, the children. Such action it employee, renders direct Appellants aid sectarian institution. express particular they concern over units because mobile perceive a that danger operate merely such a unit as an might annex the school or it services.
At the outset, posture we note in its case present that does not properly present any use of a concerning issue public facility adjunct as an of a educational enter- sectarian prise. The Court statute, we, construed the as do District authorize services on only physically sites that are “neither 13We believe appellants’ understanding this concession reflects that programs are not intended to non influence the classroom activities Our Brother argues stipulations schools. that certain Marshall regarding paragraph (H) guidance .counseling announce will include planning particular Post, and selection of agree that courses. at 261. We day-to-day such with the parochial involvement curriculum of the impermissible. We, however, would be stipulations. do so read the Rather, recognize guidance we understand them to that a will counselor engage broad-scale, long-term planning of a student’s career choices and general study areas of further those Our Brother will choices. argues Marshall stipulations understanding also reflect an remedial (I) plan study service paragraph teachers under will courses of for use in provision pose grave classroom. Ibid. Such a would consti questions. tutional stipulations, however, that the reme dial keep service teacher will the classroom teacher informed of the action - App. taken. stipulations approve We do not plan understand ning of classroom activities. educationally
nor identified the functions of non- public school.” 417 F. Supp., Thus, services are to be offered under circumstances that reflect their religious neutrality. *16 recognize
We unlike that, therapist the diagnostician, may establish a relationship pupil in which there might opportunities ideological views. transmit Meek the Court acknowledged danger publicly em- personnel ployed who those analogous to at services might issue here transmit instruction and advance religious beliefs in in Part their activities. as discussed But, supra, the Court from V, emphasized danger this arose performed pervasively the fact that the services were in the S., atmosphere sectarian of school. the church-related U. Lemon, danger at See also 618-619. The likely was there, public existed not employee because the but of deliberately religion, to subvert his task to the service might alter pressures rather because the of environment of types his behavior from as these long its normal course. So locations, the neutral truly religiously services are offered at perceived in Meek danger does arise. may fact that a unit on site on occasion serve
The a neutral the same concerns that provoke sectarian does not Meek,14 therapist’s influence on a troubled the Court in he that is the fact that a sectarian behavior exerted serves from the of pupil qualitatively different influence dangers institution. The pervasive atmosphere of a schoolchildren, program and the use of purpose of the is to aid way program. implement local centers is a sensible convenient may safety, used, often be considerations of Although public schools justify distance, adequacy on occasion of accommodations will nonpublic premises. school' public or mobile units near the use of centers Id., Certainly should not be seen fore the Establishment Clause logistical extending needed response difficulties closing practical to the community. of the the children and desired aid all in Meek from institution, arose the nature perceived pupils. not from nature of the therapeutic hold
Accordingly, providing we premises at a neutral site off remedial services impermissible schools will not have the effect advancing religion. any Neither will excessive en- there be tanglement arising supervision public employees from they hardly maintain a insure that neutral stance. It can supervision public employees performing be said that public functions on property creates an en- excessive tanglement between church and 3317.06 (G), state. Sections (K) (H), (I), constitutional.
VII Equipment Instructional Materials and (B) (C) expenditures Sections 3317.06 authorize *17 purchase pupils parents funds the and loan to or their upon request of instruc- individual instructional materials and equipment of public tional kind in use in the “incapable within the and which district is of diversion religious use.” provides Section 3317.06 also that the mate- equipment may be of a premises stored on the rials nonpublic publicly personnel school and that hired who expenditures The sections authorize of funds:
“(B) purchase pupils attending To and to loan to nonpublic schools parents upon request, within the district or to their secular, individual such nonideological instructional materials as are in use in neutral public incapable schools within the district and which are of diversion to religious personnel use and to hire lending clerical to administer such program.
“(C) purchase To pupils attending to loan to nonpublic schools parents, upon within the district or to their request, individual such secular, nonideological equipment neutral and instructional as is in use in school within the district and incapable which is of diversion to religious personnel use and to hire clerical lending administer such program.” may perform their services lending program
administer “for nonpublic premises necessary when upon implementation lending program.” of the efficient is equipment exact nature of the material and Although stipulated: “It ex- clearly revealed, parties equipment loaned to pected that materials and former under the new law will be similar to such parents equipment except extent materials capable of diver- requires equipment materials and law supplied.” App. 36.16 sion to issues will not be provided predecessor invali- Equipment under the statute, tape forth in 1, supra, projectors, dated as set n. included maps kits, record recorders, players, globes, science Court, and the like. The forecasting charts, weather District statute, limited, 417 F. at found the new as now Supp., distinguish the constitutional because the could not court equipment provisions from textbook loan of material and Allen, Meek, 421 S., at and in U. upheld 359-362, Meek, however, the Court considered the constitutional loan to schools of instructional validity of a direct despite apparent secular equipment, and, material impermissible. held the loan goods, nature Mr. Justice writing Court, stated: Stewart, very purpose many “The those schools is integrated secular and teach- education; private appellees suggested argument Counsel for the at oral *18 equipment limited were further to those items “lendable the material Arg. assertion, pupil a for individual use.” Tr. of Oral 31. This how to stipulation, App. 36, ever, appears contrary representa to be to the to the appellees, Arg. 21, understanding and to tion of the Tr. of Oral the state any event, meaningful In Court, Supp., 417 F. a of the District equipment be drawn between used on a basis cannot collective distinction individually. equipment All materials and must be used and that used courses, supplement App. support and their value derives from the they enterprise. provide to the collective educational to the process large extent, to a devoted inculcation ing is, Kurtzman, of Lemon v. religious values and belief. See educational 403 U. at 616-617. to the Substantial aid necessarily results function such accordingly, of schools, enterprise a whole. in aid to sectarian school hand provide goes secular education those schools ‘[T]he in hand with that is the reason mission schools’ existence. Within the institution, Id., (opinion two are at 657 of inextricably intertwined.’ J.).” S.,U. Brennan, ostensibly neutral
Thus, was limited to though even loan ines- equipment, and secular instructional material and it direct and capably primary providing of had the effect enterprise. substantial advancement of the sectarian in- Appellees it by emphasizing seek to Meek avoid In program nonpublic volved a of schools. loans direct under Ohio contrast, the material and at issue equipment In parent. view, statute are our pupil loaned or his it if however, would exalt form this distinction over substance were found to in Meek. justify a result different from Before Meek by was this Ohio authorized the decided Court, equipment directly nonpublic loan material and to the Meek, schools. Then, light legislature the state decided pupils. goods parents Despite channel the through the change legal program the technical substance bailee, is the equipment substantially same as before: The same; it will students; may receive the use and it same still be prem- stored and on the distributed ises. view of the impossibility separating the secular education from inevitably function the state aid sectarian, part support flows in role the schools. compelled by this conclusion is prior Court’s Indeed, consideration issue Committee analogous Public Nyquist, (1973). Education There the S. Court tuition considered, among others, a reimbursement program
251 whereby New York gave parents low-income who sent their children to schools a direct unrestricted cash (but of to grant per $50 $100 child no more than 50% actually tuition paid). justify attempted State as Ohio on program, here, does the basis flowed that aid parents rather than to the schools. church-related observed, however, in Court unlike bus that, program Everson Board 330 1 Education, v. U. and the (1947), S. Allen, in program book there 'to guar- “has been no endeavor separation antee the religious between secular and educational functions and to that supports only ensure State aid financial ” Kurtzman, S., former.' U. Lemon 783, quoting v. S., 403 U. at 613. The grant Court found that thus program served to religion. grant establish If in cash to parents impermissible, we see a grant fail to how in kind of goods enterprise furthering religious better.17 any can fare we (B) (C) §§ hold 3317.06 to be Accordingly, unconstitutional.18
17 many respects, In Nyquist present was a more case than the difficult Nyquist First, arguable grant one. it was at did least the tuition end up not parent the hands of was free since spend grant money S., he similar as chose. U. at 785-786. No argument parties expressly stipulated could be made here since the equipment that material supplement App. must be used to courses. Second, grant Nyquist tuition, since the was limited it 50% arguable grant was should supporting be seen as the secular part enterprise. S., the church-school 413 U. An argument here, that kind could also be made for Meek makes clear equipment inextricably material and connected with the church-related school’s function. is, Meek, There as there was a tension between this result and Allen, (1968). Board Education premised S. Allen was on the something view that the educational content of textbooks is can ascertained advance and cannot be diverted to sectarian uses. Nyquist explained: the Court Everson, “In found the program Court bus fare analogous to the provision police of services such and fire protection, sewage disposal, parochial highways, and sidewalks for schools. 330 U. at 17-18. Such
VIII Trips Field funds: of expenditures authorizes Section 3317.06 also transportation trip such field “(L) To provided to students as nonpublic school services to districts School in the district. public school students companies transportation with commercial may contract busses if school service district transportation such (cid:127)are unavailable.” trips; of timing on the field is no restriction
There to parallel lies in statute draws on number restriction school students in the district. trips provided public to field of stipulated trips that “would parties consist governmental, cultural, and scientific industrial, visits of designed centers to enrich the secular studies students.” services, provided citizens, separate in common all are 'so and so indisputably id,., they off marked from the at function/ may fairly posture reflections a be viewed as of neutral toward upon principle. Allen is founded a there institutions. similar Court repeatedly emphasized upon the record in that ease was no there provided be anything indication that textbooks would other than purely S., secular at courses.” U. 781-782. law,
Board Education Allen has remained and we a now follow as principle matter of stare decisis the that restriction of textbooks to those provided public is sufficient to ensure that the books not be will religious purposes. cases, used for In however, recent more we have presumption declined to extend that neutrality other items in the Meek, S., setting. 362-366; Levitt, lower school S., See U. at 413 U. Nyquist, Compare S., at 774-780, 481-482. 413 U. at with Tilton v. Richardson, (1971). argued S. 672 It has been U. the Court Allen to Meek, should extend cover all items similar to textbooks. See J., concurring 421 at judgment part C. (BURGER, id., dissenting part); J., at 390-391 concurring in (Rehnquist, judgment part dissenting part). faced, however, When with a unique presumption choice between extension of created in Allen and principles subsequent continued adherence to the announced in cases, our we choose the course. latter 49. The
App. destination, choice will however, made by be from a range teacher wide locations. Court, The District 1124-1125, F. Supp., held this feature to constitutionally from indistinguishable which the Court was concerned in Educa Everson v. Board of tion, 1 (1947). 330 U. S. We agree. do not Everson approved system Court under Jersey which a New board parents education reimbursed sending for the cost their school, public children to and from parochial, carrier. The Court analogized reimbursement situa *21 municipal tions where carry a common carrier is ordered to all schoolchildren at a reduced rate, police where the force is ordered to protect way all children on their and from school. Id., at 17. The critical factors in examples, these the Everson system, reimbursement has school no the expenditure control over of the funds and of the the effect expenditure is unrelated pro content education bus Thus, program passed vided. fare in Everson consti tutional muster because did not determine how often the pupil traveled between home every and school— every child must make one trip day round because the —and to any aspect travel was unrelated of the curriculum. situation is in sharp Ohio contrast. the non- First, public school controls the of timing trips and, within a certain their range, frequency Thus, destinations. rather schools, than children, truly are of recipients the service as this Court and, has recognized, this fact alone may be sufficient to invalidate impermissible the program as aid. See Lemon Kurtzman, direct v. 403 U. at 621. Sec- S., a ond, although trip may be to a location that would interest to those in it is the schools, individual teacher trip who makes a field meaningful. experience begins study and discussion of place to be it visited; continues on location with the teacher out items of pointing stimulating interest and the imagination; and ends with it integral trips The field are an experience. discussion of the teacher and where the part experience, the educational unacceptable within for a sectarian an institution, works byproduct. risk inevitable See fostering religion an Pittenger, Meek In Lemon Court S., at 366. U. stated: need not and do not assume that
“We teachers any con- parochial guilty schools will be of bad faith or design imposed by scious to evade the limitations simply recognize First statute and the Amendment. We person, that a in a school teaching dedicated his or to inculcate operated affiliated with her faith and difficulty tenets, inevitably experience great its will religiously remaining neutral.” of field must be as was the
Funding therefore, treated trips, funding maps supra, Pittenger, charts Meek v. Committee Public funding buildings and tuition in Nyquist, supra, Education v. of teacher- funding and the Education, prepared tests in Levitt v. Public Committee for supra; impermissible it must be declared aid to direct sectarian education.
Moreover, school authorities will be unable ade- quately to insure secular use of without trip the field funds supervision close teachers. This would create excessive entanglement:
“A comprehensive, discriminating, continuing and state inevitably surveillance required will to ensure that these obeyed restrictions are and First Amendment respected. otherwise book, Unlike a a teacher cannot be inspected once so as to determine extent and intent personal his or subjective her beliefs and acceptance of imposed the limitations First Amendment. These prophylactic contacts will involve excessive and enduring entanglement between state and church.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 S.,U. at 619. also Maryland
See Roemer v. Public Bd., Works S., U. We hold § 3317.06 (L) to be unconstitutional.
IX In summary, we hold portions constitutional those Ohio statute authorizing the to provide State nonpublic school pupils with books, standardized testing and scoring, diagnostic services, therapeutic and and remedial services. We hold portions unconstitutional those relating instructional ma- equipment terials and and trip field services.
The judgment of the District
Court
therefore affirmed
part
part.
and reversed in
It is so ordered.
The Chief
Justice dissents from
VII and
Parts
VIII of
opinion.
Court's
Rehnquist’s
For the reasons stated in
sepa-
Mr. Justice
opinion
rate
in Meek
Pittenger,
v.
I join I, VII, Parts and VIII opinion, Court’s judgment the reversal Court’s insofar District upheld constitutionality judgment of Ohio Code Ann. Rev. (C), (L) (Supp. 1976). 3317.06 (B), §§ *23 I (plurality dissent however from Parts and II, III, opin- IV opinion and VI of the Court’s and ion) Parts V the affirm- as it insofar sustained judgment Court’s District anee of the (H), (F), (I), (A), (D), (G), 3317.06 constitutionality §§ in managed has holds that Ohio Court (K). (J), or entan- that avoids an effect statute to fashion respects these “ he But Clause. [t] the Establishment condemned' glement simple- well as sophisticated as nullifies Amendment [First] Wilson, v. Lane prohibitions, avoid its attempts .” minded . . in drafts- any event, ingenuity and, 268, 307 U. S. (1939), subsidy to sectarian the fact that this manship cannot obscure appropriated (less now the sums $88,800,000 amounts to invalidated) today are (B) (C) which finance 3317.06 §§ nowhere evaluates initial biennium. The Court just for the of the statute determining compatibility factor in this v. Everson requires, the Establishment as that Clause Clause, Education, (1947). evaluation, Its 1, Board 330 U. S. to finance appropriated after of the amount even deduction compels my view the conclusion (B) (C), 3317.06 §§ magnitude unusual political potential of that a divisive more to Ohio This suffices without program. inheres entirety in its require the conclusion that the Ohio statute laws “re- prohibition against offends the First Amendment’s Pittenger, religion.” Meek specting- an establishment of v. (1976) J., concurring); 349, 373-385 U. S. (Brennan, Kurtzman, (1971) (Douglas, 640-642 Lemon v. U. S. Education, supra, Everson Board J., concurring); v. Marshall, part dissenting concurring Mr. Justice part. opinion. I and VIII of the Court’s join I, V, VII, Parts I join am however, stated unable below, For the reasons opinion judgment upholding or its of the Court’s remainder (A), of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 3317.06 constitutionality §§ (Supp. 1976). (K) (G), (H), (J), (I), 3317.06 upholds provision, § the textbook loan Court Allen, Board Education precedent on the (A),
257 (1968). Ante, U. S. 236 at 236-238. It also recognizes, how “a ever, that there is tension” between Allen and the reasoning of the Court Meek Pittenger, v. I (1975). U. S. 349 would resolve that tension I overruling am Allen. now Allen convinced that is largely responsible for reducing the “high impregnable” wall between church state erected by the First Amendment, Everson v. Education, Board U. S. 1, (1947), blurred, to “a and variable indistinct, barrier,” Kurtzman, Lemon v. 403 U. (1971), S. incapable of performing its vital of protecting functions both church and state. Allen, upheld we a program textbook loan on the
assumption that sectarian school’s twin functions of reli- instruction gious and secular education were separable. In Meek, atS., flatly rejected assump- 245-248. we tion as a basis for allowing a State to teaching loan secular "equipment materials and such to schools: purpose many very provide “The of those tois integrated and religious secular education; teach process to ing is, extent, a large devoted to the inculcation values and belief. . . . Substantial aid educational function such schools, accordingly, neces enterprise results in a sarily aid sectarian school whole. secular education those schools '[T]he goes hand with the mission that hand only reason for the schools’ existence. Within the insti tution, inextricably two intertwined.’ [Lemon Kurtzman, supra, (opinion of Brennan, J.).” 657] 421 U. upheld Meek a although textbook
Thus, loan on program Allen, it of Allen strength of left rationale undamaged only constitutionally significant is a if there a difference between directly to pedagogical materials a loan sectarian school and materials loan of those use in sectarian students ante, at demonstrates, convincingly As the schools. Court is no there such difference. 249-250, Lemon by our recognition been has
Allen also undercut of aid programs political potential” “the divisive *25 of entanglement of dangers of the schools one sectarian to Amendment was intended church and-state the First in We concerned 622-624. were forestall. U. at S., appropria- need for annual Lemon with the danger “[p]olitical to of lead larger larger would tions sums Id., at on lines.” fragmentation divisiveness made are danger appropriations This exists whether in textbooks, supplies, or, to fund instructional other Lemon, has As teachers’ salaries. Brennan Justice Mr. potential Allen noted, significance did not consider the in of to political programs sec- divisiveness inherent aid Pittenger, supra, (concurring tarian schools. Meek v. at part dissenting in in part). central course, of textbooks are to is, unquestionable
It process.1 Meek, of there- the educational Under the rationale by the fore, they provided should not be State to sectarian to func- schools2 because aid the educational “[substantial . to tion of such schools . results aid . sec- necessarily enterprise whole.” at 366. It is S., tarian school as a U. Pittenger, Meek v. S., J., concurring (BreNNAN, 421 U. at 384 See Allen, Education Board of part dissenting part); 392 (Black, J., dissenting). 2Although formally parents, their the texts are loaned to students or they reality provided is that school. The school has the to power provided, since choose the be the statute defines “text to books to “ 'any pupil book” as book or which a uses as a text or book substitute particular program regularly text in a class or the school he substitute ” Ante, request” attends.’ will distribute “loan The school forms students, them, them authority collect and submit to the silent provides which books. The record is as to whether the books public authority during to the or stored will be returned at the school summer recess. unquestionable
also that the cost of textbooks is certain to be substantial. Lemon, Under the of therefore, rationale they provided should not be because of the dangers political “divisiveness on lines.” I would, accordingly, over rule Board Education v. Allen and hold unconstitutional §3317.06 (A).3 Allen,
By overruling we would free ourselves to draw a line acceptable between unacceptable forms aid that would capable both application of consistent responsive the concerns discussed above. I line, believe, That should be placed general between programs welfare that serve children in sectarian happen schools to be a con because place venient to reach the programs’ target populations and programs pro educational assistance.4 General welfare grams, programs contrast assistance, educational do aid “[substantial educational function” *26 schools,5 421 366, at whether sectarian, secular or and therefore do not of kind assistance-to the
3 experience Our with Allen warning bears out The Chief Justice: adjudication constitutional steps, some “[I]n which taken were when thought approach verge,’ 'the platform yet have become the further
steps. A certain develops theory momentum and it can constitutional easily be a ‘downhill stop.” thrust’ set in motion but difficult to retard Lemon Kurtzman, (1971). 403 U. 624 S.
The tension between Allen and Meek indicates either that we must soon platform remove the plunge or take the into new realms of assist- state ance to sectarian institutions. by This is the line advocated Black, Justice dissenting Mr. in Board of Allen, Education v. supra, at 250-254. Mr. Justice the author Black was of the opinion Court’s Education, in Everson v. Board U. S. (1947), opinion which on in Allen was based. extent, any course, program To improves general some that well-being may of a student his assist education. be- The distinction is programs tween help pro- that the school educate a student and welfare grams may making have the effect receptive a student more being educated. impermissible in Meek. we found of sectarian schools mission do not assist programs Moreover, welfare general because is no schools, there denominational sectarian functions of over merits those disputes political expect reason to along lines. will divide programs textbook which authorizes (A), 3317.06 § addition to (L), and held unconsti- (C), program, paragraphs (B), loan clearly wrong fall on Court, tutional side by the authorize, I propose. paragraphs line Those constitutional equipment instructional the loan of and respectively, materials trips. provision transportation field and provide any- can no contention programs There that these assistance. other than educational thing by I with Court that the services authorized agree also constitutionally permissible. (G) paragraphs (D), (F), and are speech psychological hearing diagnosis, Those services and are speech therapy. and diagnosis, psychological hearing medical, dental, optometric Like the services nursing, (E) by appel- paragraph challenged authorized lants, promote the health and well- these services children’s impact an indirect and on their being, remote educational progress.6 (I), which it upholds (H), (K),
The Court paragraphs “therapeutic under rubric of groups paragraph (G), Ante, I agree 244—248. cannot the services services.” argue impermissible Appellants programs these because *27 may diagnostic therapeutic personnel and be influenced to indoctrinate the they pupils with deal in the of the sect that runs the whom tenets sec agree real, danger if were it tarian school. I that this militate would against upholding Appellants strongly explain, services. these do not how likely why any hearing ever, it that a test more will become occasion eye than that an chart will be indoctrination used to deliver challenge messages. provision diagnostic (Appellants op- do not services.) adjudication constitutional tometric While must be sensitive abuses, danger imaginable it cannot be based on of subtle fear but totally implausible evils.
authorized these paragraphs by three should be treated like the psychological provided by services paragraph (G). Para- graph (H) authorizes provision of guidance and counseling parties stipulated services. The that the functions to be performed by guidance and counseling personnel would assisting include in “developing students meaningful educa- tional and career goals,” and “planning school programs of study.” personnel these addition, will with parents discuss “their a) progress children’s educational needs, and course b) c) educational selections, and opportunities vocational plans, d) study skills.” counselors will also collect organize information for by use parents, teachers, and students. App. description 45-46. makes This clear that paragraph (H) directly sup- services authorizes that would port programs educational of sectarian schools. is, It in violation therefore, of the First Amendment.
Paragraphs (I) (K) pro- remedial services grams for disabled children. stipulation parties indicates paragraphs specialized will fund these teachers who will both provide instruction themselves and create plans instructional use students’ regular classrooms. Id., at 47-48. “therapeutic These clearly services” are in- improve tended aid the sectarian schools performance of their I students the classroom. would not them treat programs if were physical they psychological therapy. Finally, the Court upholds paragraph (J), which provides services, standardized tests scoring on the ground clearly these tests are nonideological and that the State has an interest in assuring the education received sectarian school students meets minimum I standards. question do not of this legitimacy interest, if required and Ohio students to specified obtain scores on certain promoted tests before being I or graduated, agree would that it could administer those tests students to ensure sectarian its standards were being met. The indicates, record however, that the tests *28 262 in secular progress students used to measure
“are the meas- no that subjects.” Id., at 48. It contains indication compliance assure state standards urements are taken to purposes of the schools. administrative rather than for internal purposes testing to serve To extent is done I State, schools rather than the would hold sectarian Amendment. provision by violates the its State First in the concurring concurring part, Mr. Justice in Powell, part. judgment part, dissenting often lines that draw troubling Our decisions this area greater arbitrary. must No we could achieve seem doubt implica analytical accept we were to broadest if tidiness Pittenger, S. of the in Meek U. tions observation v. func aid to educational (1975), “[substantial necessarily . . results tion of schools . aid [sectarian] course, If took a whole.” we enterprise the sectarian kind— any aid of impossible it would become to sustain state supplied is if in character and wholly even aid is secular Meek would itself than the institutions. rather Allen, Education along have to be with Board overruled, Everson v. Board perhaps (1968), even S. of a Education, persistent desire (1947). 330 U. S. helping sectarian proper number of to find States means has not would be doomed. This survive Court education by the yet required that such a harsh result thought it in consider Certainly few Establishment Clause. would apart from their public quite schools, Parochial interest. alternative educational provided have purpose, sectarian wholesome afford Americans; they often young for millions of they in some States competition public schools; and with our operation the tax burden incident substantially relieve legitimate has, schools. State moreover,' quality all highest facilitating education interest parents school their boundaries, whatever within its children chosen them. *29 It important is keep to these issues in perspective. At this point century the 20th we are quite far removed from the dangers prompted the Framers to include the Establish- ment Clause in the Bill Comm’n, of Rights. See Walz v. Tax 397 U. (1970). S. The risk of significant religious or denominational control over our processes democratic —or even deep political division along religious remote, lines—is and when viewed against positive contributions of sec- tarian any such schools, risk entirely seems tolerable in light of the continuing oversight this Court. Our decisions to sought principles establish preserve cherished safeguard of the Establishment Clause without resort to blind absolutism. If endeavor this means a analytical loss some tidiness, then that too is entirely tolerable. Most of the today decision Court’s follows this I join tradition, I Parts through VI of the opinion. respect
With
IVII,
Part
concur
I
the judgment.
did Meek
am
nor
not
persuaded,
that all loans of
hold,
secular
instructional material
equipment
“inescapably
[have]
primary effect of providing a direct
substantial advance-
Ante,
ment of the
enterprise.”
sectarian
If that were
then Meek surely would
Allen.
case,
have overruled
Instead
Court
Allen,
thereby necessarily
reaffirmed
hold-
ing that at least some
helpful
such loans of materials
in the
process
permissible
educational
are
long
the aid is
as
—so
incapable of diversion to religious
cf. Committee
uses,
Public Education
Nyquist,
The Ohio includes some statute materials maps, such wall for which the con- paraphernalia charts, and other classroom A transparent is a fiction. cept a to individuals loan loan from aid” indistinguishable forbidden “direct these items is bailee. itself, institution whoever technical the sectarian makes provision Meek, supra, See at 362-366. Since from separate materials no these instructional attempt I the Court meaningfully individuals, agree others lent IBut precedents. it our cannot be sustained under pro- properly would no constitutional defect limited find *30 only appropriate to the lending vision individuals themselves custom- equipment instructional materials and similar to used in schools. arily transporta-
I trip VIII, concerning as to field dissent Part funded the tion. though The Court writes as the statute salary outing. of who takes on the the teacher the students limited provided fact the bus driver and are and purpose physical of movement between the I this aid indis- trip. secular destination of field find As Everson, supra, from tinguishable principle upheld I this judgment approving would sustain the Court's District part of the Ohio statute. part dissenting concurring Stevens, Justice
Mr. part. the secular is a between distinction argument from Darrow’s quote To Clarence fundamental one. in the case: Scopes knowledge leaves is where religion
“The realm ... it has never needed where faith off, begins, and wherever it has support, of the State arm public and the reli- both the it has harmed it, received pretend serve.” gion that it would State, Tenn. 7, Scopes v. 289 S. Arg. W. Tr. Oral Library Congress) (punc Papers, Darrow (1927) (on Clarence file with corrected). tuation
The line drawn by the Establishment Clause of the First must Amendment also have a fundamental character. It not should differentiate between direct and indirect subsidies, between or instructional materials like globes maps on the one hand and instructional materials like textbooks For on the other. reason, rather than the three-part test described II I Part would plurality’s opinion, adhere to the test enunciated for the Court Mr. Justice Black:
“No in any amount, large tax can be levied small, or support any institutions, activities or what they may they may ever or form called, whatever adopt religion.” to teach Everson Board practice Education, 330 1, 16. U. S. subsidy schools is test, Under sectarian state financing regardless invalid of the form it takes. tests, field educational buildings, trips, materials, instructional give For all aid equally schoolbooks all invalid.2 religious.3 mission, school’s which at heart to the educational possibility I hand, prepared other On the am exclude *31 2 tension, ante, 18, 251-252,. n. between acknowledged of the at view Pittenger, 421 Allen, Meek v. 236, Education v. 392 U. S. Board of decisis cannot eventual choice stare 349, an the doctrine foreclose U. S. precedents. inconsistent two between 3 “’entangled” itself, legislation, that is not the the sectarian school It is religion: integrated provide many very purpose of those schools is to “The large extent, teaching is, a religious education; process to secular See Lemon v. religious belief. values and the inculcation of devoted Kurtzman, S., the educational U. at 616-617. Substantial aid to 403 accordingly, necessarily schools, in aid to the sec- results of such function those enterprise secular education as a whole. ‘[T]he tarian religious goes mission that with the hand hand schools institution, Within the the two for the existence. reason schools’ J.). Id., Brennan, (opinion inextricably at 657 See intertwined.’ 1680, Schools, Harv. L. Rev. Freund, Parochial 82 Public Aid to generally Pittenger, supra, Meek v. 1688-1689.” 266 may be administered us statute before parts
that some plainly provide can manner. The State a constitutional schools. attending nonpublic children public health services in Parts V described services therapeutic The diagnostic and category.4 into may fall this opinion and VI of Court’s I am not point, on this misgivings I Although have some face. invalid on its statute part of the prepared to hold this test have Everson improve on the Court’s efforts This 5 left us have precedents” “Corrosive successful. proved As cases. decide these on which to firm principles without encouraged been the States demonstrates, this case See ends. achieving forbidden ways for new to search 756, Nyquist, U. S. Public Education v. Committee for wall impregnable” “high be a should 797. What “ ‘blurred, reduced to a state,6 has been church and between ” has ante, 236. The result at barrier,’ variable indistinct, and to “both the harm Darrow Clarence been, predicted, pretend to serve.” would religion that and the [this aid] and IV of IT, III, I from dissent Parts Accordingly, opinion. plurality’s by the ante, 256, I am concerned my Brother Like BRENNAN, since the Court this statute. But money appropriated under amount may only much smaller amount program, so much of the invalidated
has still be involved. dissenting). J., (Rutledge, 5 Everson, U. at 63 6Id., at 18. 736, 775, Bd., I Maryland S. Public Works v. In Roemer subsidy religious tempt tendency pernicious of a state
spoke of “the wholly abandoning without compromise their mission schools to aid, qualify apt illustration. To sectarian presents an This case it.” exclusivity. As the District Court relinquish their must attending only pupils noted, provides aid those “to the statute policies distinction as to . . . creed . . . make no admission schools whose Essex, Supp. 417 F. Wolman of its teachers.” of either its *32 pressure will be under to avoid Similarly, 1113, 1116. sectarian subjects, religious perspective on secular so as to present a textbooks which provided the State. the free textbooks obtain