High-Stakes Test: The Supreme Court and the Future of Church-State Separation

By Boston, Rob | The Humanist, July-August 2013 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

High-Stakes Test: The Supreme Court and the Future of Church-State Separation


Boston, Rob, The Humanist


The name Alton Lemon may not ring any bells for you, but it should.

Lemon, who died on May 4 at age eighty-four, was the lead plaintiff in an important 1971 Supreme Court case dealing with the separation of church and state. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the high court struck down programs in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island that diverted taxpayer money to private religious schools. The justices also fashioned a legal test that continues to shape church-state law: the Lemon Test.

I'm not a lawyer and don't want to bog anyone down in courtroom jargon, but it's important to know a little about this test and how the court has applied it. In a nutshell, the Lemon Test has three prongs. The Supreme Court ruled that a law violates church-state separation if any one of its prongs is violated; that is, if:

* The law lacks a valid secular purpose;

* The law has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion;

* The law fosters excessive entanglement between church and state.

You can tell that Lemon is a great test because the religious right and the Catholic hierarchy can't stand it. Indeed, Lemon would have resulted in a high and firm church-state wall--if it had been followed.

Unfortunately, it wasn't. During the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the Supreme Court began to change. Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia to the court, a man who made no secret of his hatred for the Lemon Test. In a 1993 decision, Scalia went so far as to call it "a ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad after being repeatedly killed and buried."

Reagan's other high court appointees--Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy--were critics of the test as well, as has been Bush appointee Clarence Thomas. O'Connor and Kennedy were never as vociferous as Scalia. O'Connor tried to find middle ground by proposing a replacement standard--the Endorsement Test. O'Connor's test is pretty much what its name suggests: Any government action that amounts to an endorsement of religion is a violation of church-state separation.

But O'Connor's Endorsement Test failed to catch on with a majority of justices. At the same time, the Lemon Test was never explicitly discarded. The test has been significantly eroded at the high court, especially in the area of government tax aid to religion, but on paper it's still good law. Lower courts invoke it frequently.

That may soon change. The Supreme Court recently announced that it will hear a case challenging the use of mostly Christian prayers before meetings of the Town Board of Greece, New York. (I know more than a little about this case, since it's being sponsored by Americans United.) Some legal commentators are speculating that the high court may use the case to modify Lemon or even devise an entirely new test. Others believe the court won't go that far, enabling Lemon to remain on judicial life support.

The Supreme Court remains sharply divided on church-state issues and other matters of social policy. Most rulings these days are 5-4. A retirement of just one member of the conservative bloc could shift the balance. Until that happens, we are fated to continue grappling over these issues.

This is perhaps the worst possible time for the Supreme Court to be toying with a case that could open the door to majority rule on religious matters.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

High-Stakes Test: The Supreme Court and the Future of Church-State Separation
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?