Tilton v. Richardson

Last updated
Tilton v. Richardson
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 2, 1971
Decided June 28, 1971
Full case nameTilton v. Richardson
Citations403 U.S. 672 ( more )
9 S. Ct. 2091; 29 L. Ed. 2d 790
Case history
Prior312 F. Supp. 11911
Holding
One-time construction grants to religious colleges and universities under Title I of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 do not violate the Establishment or Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Case opinions
MajorityBurger, joined by Harlan, Stewart, Blackmun
ConcurrenceWhite
DissentDouglas, joined by Black, Marshall
DissentBrennan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I

Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that one-time construction grants to religious colleges and universities under Title I of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 do not violate the Establishment or Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Applying the effect prong of the Lemon test, the Court severs and strikes down one provision of the Act that limited enforcement of secular use restrictions to a 20-year period.

Contents

Background

Title I of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 provided construction grants limited to buildings and facilities that were "exclusively for secular educational, purposes". [lower-alpha 1]

Federal taxpayers filed a lawsuit challenging five projects at four church-related colleges in Connecticut. The district court found that the act was constitutional.

Supreme Court

In a split 5-4 decision the Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal construction grants under the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. Tilton was decided on the same day as Lemon v. Kurtzman and the Lemon criteria were applied for the Establishment question. [1]

Plurality decision

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger explained that theLemon criteria were "guidelines with which to identify instances in which the objectives of the Religion Clauses have been impaired". [2] They found that the act had a legitimate secular purpose to accommodate "rapidly growing" numbers of students pursuing higher education. Citing Bradfield v. Roberts , Everson v. Board of Education , Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen and Walz v. Tax Comm'n of the City of New York they rejected appellants "simplistic argument" that the Establishment Clause requires a blanket ban on financial aid to religious organizations: "The crucial question is not whether some benefit accrues to a religious institution as a consequence of the legislative program, but whether its principal or primary effect advances religion". [lower-alpha 2] [3]

Allen is remembered for expanding Everson's holding upholding the constitutionality of a student transportation reimbursement where the benefit to religious schools was considered incidental to the secular legislative purpose of providing safe transportation to students. [4] [5] Even though textbooks loans were more closely related to the teaching function of the school than the transportation reimbursement upheld in Everson the Court would not assume that "religiosity in parochial elementary and secondary schools necessarily permeates the secular education that they provide" without evidence. [lower-alpha 3] [6] [7]

Based on the district court's finding that none of the schools involved in the Tilton case had violated the § 751(a)(2) restrictions that prohibited the display of religious symbols and non-secular activities in federally funded buildings the court upheld the constitutionality of the law providing construction grants for exclusively secular-use facilities. [8] The only provision that presented an Establishment concern was § 754(b)(2) placing a 20-year limit on enforceability of the recipient's obligations to not use the facility for religious instruction or worship: "The restrictive obligations of a recipient institution...cannot, compatibly with the Religion Clauses, expire while the building has substantial value". This provision was severed. [lower-alpha 4]

The Court said inTilton that the "minimal" inspections required to enforce compliance with secular use restrictions will not result in excessive entanglements between government and religious authorities. College students "are less impressionable and less susceptible to religious indoctrination". [9] The program does not subsidize teachers like the statutes in Lemon. The entanglement that would result from government surveillance over teachers would be excessive. [10] There is less entanglement with a one-time construction grant than continuing payments of teacher salaries that require audits of school expenditures. [lower-alpha 5] [11]

The Court did not find there was any coercion directed to religious belief or activity that would infringe the Free Exercise rights of taxpayers. [lower-alpha 6]

Notelist

  1. ↑ Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 674
  2. ↑ Tilton,403 U.S. at 679
  3. ↑ Tilton,403 U.S. at 681
  4. ↑ Tilton,403 U.S. at 684
  5. ↑ Tilton,403 U.S. at 685-88
  6. ↑ Tilton,403 U.S. at 689

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court considered a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The constitutionality of the law was successfully challenged in District Court, Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F. Supp. 426, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F.2d 1251. The United States Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. In its decision, the court opined that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–0 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act from 1968 was unconstitutional and in an 8–1 decision that Rhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of silent school prayer.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided 8–1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, on behalf of his son Ellery Schempp, and declared that school-sponsored Bible reading and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools in the United States was unconstitutional.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools, due to violation of the First Amendment. The ruling has been the subject of intense debate.

"Separation of church and state" is a metaphor paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in discussions regarding the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that applied the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to state law. Before this decision, the clause, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", imposed limits only on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits states and the federal government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office, in this specific case as a notary public.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), was a 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers. The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as long as parents using the program were allowed to choose among a range of secular and religious schools.

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), is a landmark court decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment's federal protection of religious free exercise incorporates via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and so applies to state governments too.

<i>Summers v. Adams</i>

Summers v. Adams, 669 F. Supp. 2d 637, was a case where the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina ruled that South Carolina's "I Believe" Act was unconstitutional for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The law authorized the state's Department of Motor Vehicles to create a license plate that had to contain "the words 'I Believe' and a cross superimposed on a stained glass window."

Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it was permissible for loans to be made to religious schools under Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981.

Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case that focused on First Amendment rights and the Establishment Clause. Vincent Pinette, an active member of the Ku Klux Klan in Columbus, Ohio, wanted to place an unattended cross on the lawn of the Capitol Square during the 1993 Christmas season. Pinette and his fellow members of the KKK submitted their request. The advisory board originally denied this request. However, Pinette and the other members of the Ohio Chapter of the Klan fought this decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The court found in favor of the Klan and the advisory board issued the permit. The Board appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the district court. The board made one last petition to the Supreme Court where the decision was made, by a vote of seven to two, that the Klan was permitted to display the cross at the public forum.

Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case examining the constitutionality of a state tax deduction granted to taxpaying parents for school-related expenses, including expenses incurred from private secular and religious schools. The plaintiffs claimed that a Minnesota statute, allowing tax deductions for both public and private school expenses, had the effect of subsidizing religious instruction since parents who paid tuition to religious schools received a larger deduction than parents of public school students, who incurred no tuition expenses.

Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Adolescent Family Life Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">School prayer in the United States</span>

School prayer in the United States if organized by the school is largely banned from public elementary, middle and high schools by a series of Supreme Court decisions since 1962. Students may pray privately, and join religious clubs in after-school hours. Public schools, such as local school districts, are banned from conducting religious observances such as prayer. Private and parochial schools are not covered by these rulings, nor are colleges and universities. Elementary and secondary schools are covered because students are required to attend, and are considered more at risk from official pressure than are older students and adults. The Constitutional basis for this prohibition is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which requires that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the enforcement of liquor laws by a non-government entity. Massachusetts had established a law that allowed any church or school located within 500 feet (150 m) of an establishment seeking a liquor license to object to that license. The Supreme Court, in an 8–1 decision, ruled that Massachusetts' law violated the Establishment Clause as it delegated powers normally reserved to the government to non-government entities and would allow decisions to be made along religious lines, effectively advancing religious purposes.

Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case which held New York state policies providing repair and maintenance grants to non-public schools, and tuition reimbursement or tax credits to parents of students were Establishment Clause violations. The Court found that the three New York State programs failed the primary effect prong of the Lemon test.

References

  1. ↑ "Tilton v. Richardson (1971)". The Free Speech Center. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
  2. ↑ Merriman, Scott A. (2007). Religion and the Law in America: An Encyclopedia of Personal Belief and Public Policy [2 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 483. ISBN   978-1-85109-864-4.
  3. ↑ First Amendment: Religion and Expression (PDF) (Report). US Government Publishing Office. p. 989. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
  4. ↑ Kauper, Paul G. (1968). "The Warren Court: Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations". Michigan Law Review. 67 (2): 285. JSTOR   1287419.
  5. ↑ Choper, Jesse H. (1987). "The Establishment Clause and Aid to Parochial Schools - An Update". California Law Review. 75 (1): 5–14. doi:10.2307/3480570. JSTOR   3480570.
  6. ↑ "High Court Ruling 'Disappointment' But Not Fatal to Nonpublic Schools". The Catholic News Archive. 2 July 1971. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
  7. ↑ Gianella, Donald (1971). "Lemon and Tilton: The Bitter and Sweet of Church-State Entanglement". Supreme Court Review: 155.
  8. ↑ Gibney, Mark P. "State Aid to Religious-Affiliated Schools: A Political Analysis". William and Mary Law Review. 28.
  9. ↑ Dry, Murray (2004). Civil Peace and the Quest for Truth: The First Amendment Freedoms in Political Philosophy and American Constitutionalism. Lexington Books. p. 261. ISBN   978-0-7391-5305-5.
  10. ↑ Underwood, James L. (1986). The Constitution of South Carolina: Church and state, morality and free expression. University of South Carolina Press. p. 189. ISBN   978-0-87249-833-4.
  11. ↑ McManus, Edgar J.; Helfman, Tara (2014). Liberty and Union: A Constitutional History of the United States. Routledge. ISBN   978-1-136-75723-5.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.