Case briefs / answer the quiz

Example Student Name

5543 Civil Rights and Liberties Date

Arch R. Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, et al.

Supreme Court 1947

Parties​: Everson and BofE of Ewing Facts​: Taxpayer challenges New Jersey law that reimbursements travel expenses incurred by parents to send children to school, even if the school was a religious school instead of a public school. Statutory Provision​: none Constitutional Provision at issue​: Establishment Clause in the First Amendment Legal Question​: Does the Establishment Clause prohibit reimbursing transportation costs to parents who send their children to religious schools? Outcome​: The court ruled in favor of Ewing. Tax money distributed to parents for the transportation of their children to religious schools is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. Reasoning​: The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion. Prior to the founding, other countries would compel their citizens to attend a particular religion or use tax funds to support favored churches. Religionists that were out of favor with the government were subject to fines, jail sentences, and other state-sponsored discriminatory behavior. The Establishment Clause means that neither the Federal or State governments cannot set up a church. Neither can they aid any religious institutions, openly or secretly. The Free Exercise Clause requires that the government not burden a person’s religious practices or exclude a person based on their religious identity. The Court must strike a balance between these two clauses to determine the Constitutional limits of New Jersey’s authority. The state has the authority to create a benefit for all of its citizens, so long as the award of those benefits is neutral to religion. Here, the state has required all children to attend school. Parents can choose a public school or another school that meets the state’s educational requirements. As the state compelled attendance, the state may also create a scheme to help children attend school, as it has done in this case. Although it’s arguable that the transportation benefit makes it easier to attend a religious school, the First Amendment does not require the state to be an adversary to religious interests. As the benefit confers no benefit to the schools directly and only provides New Jersey parents a way to comply with the compulsory education law in a safe, consistent way, no matter which schools their children are attending. The law is constitutional. Doctrine​: A government benefit may indirectly support a religious interest, (1) so long as the benefit is generally available to the public, or even a religiously neutral class of the public, and (2) the benefit is not distributed to religious interests directly but to private individuals who then direct the benefit towards a religious interest.