School District of the City of Grand Rapids v. Ball (1984)
- Docket
- 83-990
- Decided
- 1984-01-01
Summary
Question: Do the Shared Time and Community Education programs of the school district have the primary effect of advancing religion and therefore violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Conclusion: Yes. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the statute failed the Lemon test because it had the effect of advancing religious agendas and it unnecessarily entangled the government and religion. The statute advanced religion in three ways: the teachers may inadvertently or intentionally instruct from a religious perspective; the programs themselves may serve as a symbolic link between the government and religion in the eyes of impressionable children; and the programs essentially serve as a government subsidy for religious instruction. The Court recognized that the intent of the programs was to provide secular education, but there was too great a risk of the religious environment influencing the children’s instruction. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed with the Court’s decision on the Community Education program, but dissented regarding the Shared Time program. He argued that there was no way to completely eliminate contact between the government and religion, and to attempt to do so in this case would come at the cost of children’s education. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concurred in part and dissented in part. She argued that there was no evidence to indicate a link between the Shared Time program and religion other than the fact that the classes were taught in private schools. In the case of the Community Education program, she agreed with the majority. Justice Byron R. White wrote a dissent where he argued that the Court has long engaged in an unnecessarily narrow reading of the Establishment Clause. He held that this decision and others like it were “contrary to the long-range interests of the country.” Justice William H. Rehnquist also dissented and argued that the Establishment Clause was never meant to establish a “wall” between the government and religion but merely to prevent the establishment of a national religion, which these programs do not come close to doing. He also argued that there was no basis for the assumption that teaching secular topics in a religious school would effectively link the government and religion in the minds of schoolchildren.