Establishment Clause and Lemon Test

Introduction

• Over the past 50 years, there has been ongoing debate about standards for determining if state action violates the Establishment Clause.

Lemon v. Kurtzman Case (1971)

• Significance: Seminal case that set forth a three-pronged test to assess potential violations of the Establishment Clause.
• Context: The case addressed whether states could provide financial assistance to parochial (non-public) schools using taxpayer money.

Lemon Test: Three-Pronged Approach

1. Secular Purpose
   • Question: Does the state action have a secular (non-religious) purpose?
2. Primary Effect
   • Question: Does the principal or primary effect advance or inhibit religion?
3. Excessive Entanglement
   • Question: Does the state action foster an extensive or excessive entanglement with religion?

Evaluation of the Lemon Test

• Perception: Initially seen as a straightforward test (purpose, effect, entanglement).
• Criticism: Despite its clarity, the test has been subject to controversy and criticism over the past 50 years.
  • The Supreme Court has been reluctant to apply the Lemon Test in the past 25 years, though it remains legally valid.
  • Justice Clarence Thomas is a critic, suggesting it should not exist at all.

Key Points

• No Need to Meet All Prongs: Establishing any one of the three prongs (lack of secular purpose, advancement/inhibition of religion, or excessive entanglement) can suffice to demonstrate a violation of the Establishment Clause.
• Controversy: The test has been criticized for being ineffective and is often a source of legal debate.
• Terminology: The metaphor "squeezed lemon dry" highlights the perceived exhaustion and inefficacy of the test over time.