Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist

Three programs providing financial aid to non-public schools were established under several amendments to New York State law in May 1972 providing "maintenance and repair" grants to schools, and tuition reimbursement or tax benefits to parents.

A taxpayer complaint was soon filed in the Southern District of New York claiming the programs violated the Establishment Clause. The district court upheld the constitutionality of the tax benefit but agreed that the direct money grants and tuition reimbursement violated the Establishment Clause. The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed directly to the Supreme Court.{{efn|{{ussc|name=Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist|s=f|413|756|pin=769|short=no}}}}

Several cases decided before Lemon v. Kurtzman had upheld the constitutionality of various provisions that were challenged on Establishment grounds. In these cases the Court considered the benefits to the religious organization were "indirect" or "incidental".{{efn|{{ussc|name=Walz v. Tax Comm'n|link=Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York|s=f|397|664|p=676}}}}

Everson v. Board of Education was the first Supreme Court case that heard a challenge to a state law on Establishment grounds. Justice Hugo Black writing for the majority in Everson upheld a New Jersey state law that reimbursed the parents of parochial school students for transportation costs.

The reimbursement to parents provided only an indirect benefit to the schools and student bus fares were "indisputably marked off from religious function".{{efn|{{ussc|name=Everson v. Board of Education|link=Everson v. Board of Education |s=f|330|1|1947|pin=24}}}}

All three of the Lemon criteria must be met for a law to be upheld against an Establishment Clause challenge. First, the Court determines whether there is a legitimate secular purpose for the legislation such as a state interest in the general welfare of students. If the Court finds a legitimate secular purpose, the law may still be unconstitutional if the primary effect advances religion or results in excessive entanglement between government and religious orders.{{efn|{{ussc|name=Nyquist|s=f|413|756|pin=774|short=yes}}}}{{Cite book| last1 = Lind| first1 = Nancy S.| last2 = Rankin| first2 = Erik T.| title = First Amendment Rights: An Encyclopedia [2 volumes] |publisher = Bloomsbury Publishing USA| isbn = 9798216084785| date = 2012 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HxnOEAAAQBAJ}} In Nyquist all three provisions failed the second "primary effect" prong.{{harvnb|Dry|2004|p=249}} There was no entanglement analysis.

Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis Powell recognized as valid the legislative findings of the statute for all three programs, including the interest in "promoting pluralism and diversity" of school choice.{{harvnb|Meyer|Agata|Agata|2006|p=342}}

The "maintenance and repair" expenditures were not restricted by statue and "virtually all" of the recipients were Roman Catholic schools in low-income areas. Distinguishing Everson, Allen and Tilton, the Court found that without restricting the grants to exclusively secular facilities the law "has a primary effect that advances religion in that it subsidizes directly the religious activities of sectarian elementary and secondary schools."{{efn|{{ussc|name=Nyquist|s=f|413|756|pin=774|short=yes}}}}{{harvnb|Finkelman|2003|p=97}}

The Court found that the tuition reimbursement program failed the effect prong for similar reasons:{{efn|{{ussc|name=Nyquist|s=f|413|756|pin=780|short=yes}}}}

{{harvnb|Finkelman|2003|p=98}}

In the absence of an effective means of guaranteeing that the state aid derived from public funds will be used exclusively for secular, neutral, and non ideological purposes, it is clear from our cases that direct aid in whatever form is invalid.

Even though parents were reimbursed directly for tuition costs the Court distinguished Everson and Allen: "the fact that aid is distributed to parents rather than schools is only one among many factors to be considered".{{efn|{{ussc|name=Nyquist|s=f|413|756|pin=781|short=yes}}}}

The Court ruled against the tax benefit program for the same reason: the program was not "sufficiently restricted to assure that it will not have the impermissible effect of advancing the sectarian activities of religious schools."{{efn|{{ussc|name=Nyquist|s=f|413|756|pin=784|short=yes}}}}

• Walz v. Tax Comm'n, upholding tax exemptions for religious properties.

{{notelist}}

{{reflist}}

• {{Cite book| last = Dry| first = Murray| title = Civil Peace and the Quest for Truth: The First Amendment Freedoms in Political Philosophy and American Constitutionalism| publisher = Lexington Books| isbn = 978-0-7391-5305-5| date = 2004 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7S02AAAAQBAJ}}
• {{Cite book| last =Finkelman| first = Paul| title = Religion and American Law: An Encyclopedia| publisher = Routledge| isbn = 978-1-136-91956-5| date = 2003 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nWO2AgAAQBAJ}}
• {{Cite book| last1 = Meyer| first1 = Bernard S.| last2 = Agata| first2 = Burton C.| last3 = Agata| first3 = Seth H.| title = The History of the New York Court of Appeals: 1932-2003| publisher = Columbia University Press| isbn = 978-0-231-50990-9|date = 2006 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6MbmkgJp9okC}}

{{US1stAmendment Establishment Clause Supreme Court case law}}

Category:Establishment Clause case law

Category:1973 in United States case law

Category:United States Supreme Court cases

Category:United States education case law

Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court