So for the last, I guess, 50 years or so, you know, people have been trying to figure out what standards should be used in determining whether or not state action violates the Establishment Clause. Well, in Lemon v. Cook, Kurtzman in 1971. It was sort of a seminal case where they set forth a three-pronged test to determine whether or not something violated the establishment clause. In Lemon, the case involved whether or not states can provide financial assistance to a parochial or sort of non-public school there. You know people said hey wait my tax dollars should not be going to religious education establishments. You know and in 11 you know they considered number one whether the state action has a secular purpose.
Number two whether the principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion. And number three whether the state action fosters. an extensive, an excessive entanglement with religion.
You know, it looks really simple. You have your three-pronged task. You've got purpose, effect, entanglement.
Seems really straightforward. Unfortunately, lemon has proved to be, as some would aptly say, a lemon. You know, people have had a lot of fun, you know, making jokes about, you know, at the expense of the name of the case, and, you know, people have said things like, you know, that they've squeezed lemon dry and all these different things.
But, I mean, the bottom line is, is while it seemed like such a really good, straightforward test, unfortunately in the last 50 years there have been all kinds of controversies relating to Lemon. And in fact, the US Supreme Court has sort of been reluctant to apply it at all within the last 25 years, even though it still remains on the books. So it's complicated.
Clarence Thomas, Justice Thomas, absolutely sort of thinks that it should not exist at all. But it's certainly controversial there. And what's important to note with these three prongs, you don't have to establish all three. If you establish any one of these three prongs, a secular purpose, effect, or entanglement there, that in and of itself can establish a violation of the Establishment Clause.
So if there's no secular purpose, that can be an Establishment Clause violation. If it advances or inhibits religion, the primary effect, that also. could be evasive.