Lemon V. Kurtzman By Manuel Delgadillo

Lemon V. Kurtzman (March 3rd-June 28th,1971) The conflict was sparked by the funding of private schools with a religious background in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Through certain acts, the educational system was manipulated to benefit the teachers of private schools. Similar cases included Early V. DiCenso, and Robinson V. DiCenso, all in a similar time frame and conceding vicinity.

Plaintiff Side Lemon argued that the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statues violated the First Amendment, and with it the Establishment Clause. Furthermore, it was discussed that the statues violated the Free Exercise clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the parochial became increasingly powerful. Both of these claims were aimed to

Defendants side Kurtzman meanwhile argued that the funding and government help was strictly used only for improving education. Furthermore, Kurtzman argued that these funds were not used for promoting religious sanctity and practices.

Decision The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lemon on a unanimous decision. It was decided that the statutes of Rhode Island and Pensylvannia were unconstitutional as they violated the separation of church and state.

Lasting effect Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger created a three-step test for any similar occurrences of the future, commonly known as the Lemon test. The lemon test included: That a statue must have a secular legislative purpose. That it must have principle effects which neither advance or inhibit religion That it must not foster a excessive government entanglement with religion. This has established a framework for defining the line between Church and State.