330 U.S. 1 (1947), 52, Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

Docket NºNo. 52
Citation330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711
Party NameEverson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
Case DateFebruary 10, 1947
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 1

330 U.S. 1 (1947)

67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711

Everson

v.

Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

No. 52

United States Supreme Court

Feb. 10, 1947

Argued November 20, 1946

[67 S.Ct. 505] APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY

Syllabus

Pursuant to a New Jersey statute authorizing district boards of education to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools other than private schools operated for profit, a board of education by resolution authorized the reimbursement of parents for fares paid for the transportation by public carrier of children attending public and Catholic schools. The Catholic schools operated under the superintendency of a Catholic priest and, in addition to secular education, gave religious instruction in the Catholic Faith. A district taxpayer challenged the validity under the Federal Constitution of the statute and resolution so far as they authorized reimbursement to parents for the transportation of children attending sectarian schools. No question was raised as to whether the exclusion of private schools operated for profit denied equal protection of the laws; nor did the record show that there were any children in the district who attended, or would have attended but for the cost of transportation, any but public or Catholic schools.

Held:

1. The expenditure of tax raised funds thus authorized was for a public purpose, and did not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 5-8.

2. The statute and resolution did not violate the provision of the First Amendment (made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment) prohibiting any "law respecting an establishment of religion." Pp. 8-18.

133 N.J.L. 350, 44 A.2d 333, affirmed.

Page 2

In a suit by a taxpayer, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the state legislature was without power under the state constitution to authorize reimbursement to parents of bus fares paid for transporting their children to schools other than public schools. 132 N.J.L. 98, 39 A.2d 75. The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals reversed, holding that neither the statute nor a resolution passed pursuant to it violated the state constitution or the provisions of the Federal Constitution in issue. 133 N.J.L. 350, 44 A.2d 333. On appeal of the federal questions to this Court, affirmed, p. 18.

Page 3

BLACK, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

A New Jersey statute authorizes its local school districts to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools.1 The appellee, a township board of education, acting pursuant to this statute, authorized reimbursement to parents of money expended by them for the bus transportation of their children on regular busses operated by the public transportation system. Part of this money was for the payment of transportation of some children in the community to Catholic parochial schools. These church schools give their students, in addition to secular education, regular religious instruction conforming to the religious tenets and modes of worship of the Catholic Faith. The superintendent of these schools is a Catholic priest.

The appellant, in his capacity as a district taxpayer, filed suit in a state court challenging the right of the Board to reimburse parents of parochial school students. He

Page 4

contended that the statute and the resolution passed pursuant to it violated both the State and the Federal Constitutions. That court held that the legislature was without power to authorize such payment under the state constitution. 132 N.J.L. 98, 39 A.2d 75. The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals reversed, holding that neither the statute nor the [67 S.Ct. 506] resolution passed pursuant to it was in conflict with the State constitution or the provisions of the Federal Constitution in issue. 133 N.J.L. 350, 44 A.2d 333. The case is here on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 344(a).

Since there has been no attack on the statute on the ground that a part of its language excludes children attending private schools operated for profit from enjoying State payment for their transportation, we need not consider this exclusionary language; it has no relevancy to any constitutional question here presented.2 Furthermore, if the exclusion clause had been properly challenged, we do not know whether New Jersey's highest court would construe its statutes as precluding payment of the school

Page 5

transportation of any group of pupils, even those of a private school run for profit.3 Consequently, we put to one side the question as to the validity of the statute against the claim that it does not authorize payment for the transportation generally of school children in New Jersey.

The only contention here is that the state statute and the resolution, insofar as they authorized reimbursement to parents of children attending parochial schools, violate the Federal Constitution in these two respects, which to some extent overlap. First. They authorize the State to take by taxation the private property of some and bestow it upon others to be used for their own private purposes. This, it is alleged, violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second. The statute and the resolution forced inhabitants to pay taxes to help support and maintain schools which are dedicated to, and which regularly teach, the Catholic Faith. This is alleged to be a use of state power to support church schools contrary to the prohibition of the First Amendment which the Fourteenth Amendment made applicable to the states.

First. The due process argument that the state law taxes some people to help others carry out their private

Page 6

purposes is framed in two phases. The first phase is that a state cannot tax A to reimburse B for the cost of transporting his children to church schools. This is said to violate the [67 S.Ct. 507] due process clause because the children are sent to these church schools to satisfy the personal desires of their parents, rather than the public's interest in the general education of all children. This argument, if valid, would apply equally to prohibit state payment for the transportation of children to any nonpublic school, whether operated by a church or any other nongovernment individual or group. But the New Jersey legislature has decided that a public purpose will be served by using tax raised funds to pay the bus fares of all school children, including those who attend parochial schools. The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals has reached the same conclusion. The fact that a state law, passed to satisfy a public need, coincides with the personal desires of the individuals most directly affected is certainly an inadequate reason for us to say that a legislature has erroneously appraised the public need.

It is true that this Court has, in rare instances, struck down state statutes on the ground that the purpose for which tax raised funds were to be expended was not a public one. Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487; Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp., 300 U.S. 55. But the Court has also pointed out that this far-reaching authority must be exercised with the most extreme caution. Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 240. Otherwise, a state's power to legislate for the public welfare might be seriously curtailed, a power which is a primary reason for the existence of states. Changing local conditions create new local problems which may lead a state's people and its local authorities to believe that laws authorizing new types of public services are necessary to promote the general wellbeing

Page 7

of the people. The Fourteenth Amendment did not strip the states of their power to meet problems previously left for individual solution. Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 103-104; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31-32; Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 157-158.

It is much too late to argue that legislation intended to facilitate the opportunity of children to get a secular education serves no public purpose. Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 281 U.S. 370; Holmes, J., in Interstate Ry. v. Massachusetts, 207 U.S. 79, 87. See opinion of Cooley, J., in Stuart v. School District No. 1 of Kalamazoo, 30 Mich. 69 (1874). The same thing is no less true of legislation to reimburse needy parents, or all parents, for payment of the fares of their children so that they can ride in public busses to and from schools, rather than run the risk of traffic and other hazards incident to walking or "hitchhiking." See Barbier v. Connolly, supra, at 31. See also cases collected 63 A.L.R. 413; 118 A.L.R. 806. Nor does it follow that a law has a private, rather than a public, purpose because it provides that tax-raised funds will be paid to reimburse individuals on account of money spent by them in a way which furthers a public program. See Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 518. Subsidies and loans to individuals such as farmers and home owners, and to privately owned transportation systems, as well as many other kinds of businesses, have been commonplace practices in our state and national history.

Insofar as the second phase of the due process argument may differ from the first, it is by suggesting that taxation for transportation of children to church schools constitutes support of a religion by the State. But if the law is invalid for this reason, it is because it violates the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion

Page 8

by law. This is the exact question raised by appellant's second contention, to consideration of which we now turn.

Second. The New Jersey statute is challenged as a "law respecting an establishment of religion." The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1482 practice notes
  • Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 26, 2017
    • October 26, 2017
    ...thereof.'' U.S. Const. amend. I, cl. 1. Those protections have been incorporated against the States. Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947) (Establishment Clause); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (Free Exercise Page 49672 Free Exercise Clause The Free Exer......
  • 27 F.3d 1373 (9th Cir. 1994), 92-15772, Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified School Dist.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • June 15, 1994
    ...Clause applies to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. Page 1378 amend. XIV; Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 8, 67 S.Ct. 504, 507-08, 91 L.Ed. 711 The School District does not contest the Browns' assertion that witchcraft ("Wicca") is a religion u......
  • 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), 92-55228, Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • July 25, 1994
    ...alleged free speech violations. III Religion has been used to justify the suppression of speech for centuries. See Everson v. Board of Ed., 330 U.S. 1, 8-10, 67 S.Ct. 504, 507-09, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947). With the development of a vigorous First Amendment jurisprudence, we have quelled some of ......
  • 475 F.2d 29 (10th Cir. 1973), 72-1286, Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    • March 16, 1973
    ...v. Lowe, 397 U.S. 1042, 90 S.Ct. 1366, 25 L.Ed.2d 654 (1970); Allen v. Hickel, supra, 424 F.2d at 947; and Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947). The City and County do invoke the abstention doctrine, contending that the federal court should hav......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1246 cases
  • 27 F.3d 1373 (9th Cir. 1994), 92-15772, Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified School Dist.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • June 15, 1994
    ...Clause applies to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. Page 1378 amend. XIV; Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 8, 67 S.Ct. 504, 507-08, 91 L.Ed. 711 The School District does not contest the Browns' assertion that witchcraft ("Wicca") is a religion u......
  • 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), 92-55228, Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • July 25, 1994
    ...alleged free speech violations. III Religion has been used to justify the suppression of speech for centuries. See Everson v. Board of Ed., 330 U.S. 1, 8-10, 67 S.Ct. 504, 507-09, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947). With the development of a vigorous First Amendment jurisprudence, we have quelled some of ......
  • 475 F.2d 29 (10th Cir. 1973), 72-1286, Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    • March 16, 1973
    ...v. Lowe, 397 U.S. 1042, 90 S.Ct. 1366, 25 L.Ed.2d 654 (1970); Allen v. Hickel, supra, 424 F.2d at 947; and Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947). The City and County do invoke the abstention doctrine, contending that the federal court should hav......
  • 495 F.Supp. 588 (W.D.N.C. 1980), C-C-80-012, Voswinkel v. City of Charlotte
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit Western District of North Carolina
    • July 18, 1980
    ...Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 669, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 1411, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970). As the Supreme Court declared in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15, 67 S.Ct. 504, 511, 91 L.Ed. 711 "The 'establishment of religion' clause . . . means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
216 books & journal articles
  • Foreign corporations: forum non conveniens and change of venue.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 61 Nbr. 4, October 1994
    • October 1, 1994
    ...(2.) 330 U.S. 501 (1947), rev'g 153 F.2d 883 (2d Cir. 1946). For district court decision, see 62 F.Supp. 29 1 (S.D. N.Y. 1945). (3.) 330 U.S. 5 18 (1947), aff'g 153 F.2d 888 (2d Cir. 1946). For district court decision, see 64 F.Supp. 595 (E.D. N.Y. 1945). (4.) Sheila L. Birnbaum & Dougl......
  • An overview and evaluation of state Blaine Amendments: origins, scope, and First Amendment concerns.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 26 Nbr. 2, March 2003
    • March 22, 2003
    ...also suitable for use in any private school."). (583.) See Triton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. at 679, citing Everson v. Bd. of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947); Bd. of Educ. of Cent. Sch, Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968); Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664 (1970); Bradfield v. Roberts, ......
  • The effect of RLUIPA's land use provisions on local governments.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 39 Nbr. 4, May 2012
    • May 1, 2012
    ...held applicable to the actions of state and local government through incorporation in the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson v. Board of Ed., 330 U.S. 1, 8 (1947) (establishment clause) and Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (free exercise clause). (2.) See Richard J. R......
  • A redeemable loss: Lyng, lower courts and American Indian free exercise on public lands.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 60 Nbr. 1, September 2009
    • September 22, 2009
    ...or an example of its application, as opposed to a pronouncement of the holding's narrowness. Id. at 410 (quoting Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947). (35) For example, the Court made the following observation: "For '[i]f the ... effect of a law is to impede the observance of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 26, 2017
    • October 26, 2017
    ...thereof.'' U.S. Const. amend. I, cl. 1. Those protections have been incorporated against the States. Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947) (Establishment Clause); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (Free Exercise Page 49672 Free Exercise Clause The Free Exer......
  • Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools,
    • United States
    • Federal Register February 28, 2003
    • February 24, 2003
    ...levels of government--federal, state, and local-- and to all types of governmental policies and activities. See Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 \2\ See, e.g., Everson, 330 U.S. at 18 (the First Amendment ``requires the state to be a neutra......