Levitt v. Committee For Public Education and Religious Liberty Anderson v. Committee For Public Education and Religious Liberty Cathedral Academy v. Committee For Public Education and Religious Liberty 8212 269 72 8212 271

Decision Date25 June 1973
Docket NumberNos. 72,s. 72
Citation93 S.Ct. 2814,413 U.S. 472,37 L.Ed.2d 736
PartiesArthur LEVITT, as Comptroller of the State of New York, and Ewald B. Nyquist, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, Appellants, v. COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY et al. Warren M. ANDERSON, as Majority Leader and President pro tem. of New York State Senate, Appellant, v. COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY et al. CATHEDRAL ACADEMY et al., Appellants, v. COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY et al. —269 to 72—271
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

The New York Legislature appropriated $28,000,000 to reimburse nonpublic schools in the State 'for expenses of services for examination and inspection in connection with administration, grading and the compiling and reporting of the results of tests and examinations, maintenance of records of pupil enrollment and reporting thereon, maintenance of pupil health records, recording of personnel qualifications and characteristics and the preparation and submission to the state of various other reports . . ..' Tests and examinations, the most expensive of these mandated services, are of two kinds: (a) state-prepared tests, such as 'Regents examinations' and 'Pupil Evaluation Program Tests,' and (b) traditional teacher-prepared tests, which constitute the overwhelming majority of tests in nonpublic schools. Qualifying schools receive annually, per pupil, $27 (grades one through six) and $45 (grades seven through 12), and are not required to account for the moneys received and how they are spent. While the Act states that it shall not be construed to authorize payments for religious worship or instruction, churchsponsored schools are eligible to receive payments thereunder. The three-judge District Court found the Act unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The court rejected appellants' argument that payments are made only for 'secular, neutral, or non-ideological' services. The court held that the greatest portion of the funds is paid for the services of teachers in testing students and that testing is an integral part of the teaching process. The court dismissed as 'fanciful' the contention that a State may reimburse church-related schools for costs incurred in performing any service 'mandated' by state law. Held:

1. The statute constitutes an impermissible aid to religion contravening the Establishment Clause, since no attempt is made and no means are available to assure that internally prepared tests, which are 'an integral part of the teaching process,' are free of religious instruction and avoid inculcating students in the religious precepts of the sponsoring church. Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 37 L.Ed.2d 948. Pp. 479—481.

2. The inquiry is not whether the State should be permitted to pay for any 'mandated' activity, but whether the challenged state aid has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion or religious education or whether it leads to excessive entanglement by the State in the affairs of the religious institution. Pp. 481—482.

3. The Act provides only for a single per-pupil allotment for a variety of services, some secular and some potentially religious, and the courts cannot properly reduce that allotment to correspond to the actual costs of performing reimbursable secular services, as that is a legislative and not a judicial function. P. 482.

342 F.Supp. 439, affirmed.

Jean M. Coon, Albany, N.Y., for appellants Levitt and others.

Leo Pfeffer, New York City, for appellees.

Porter R. Chandler, New York City, for appellants non-public schools.

[Amicus Curiae Information from page 473 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are asked to decide whether Chapter 138 of New York State's Laws of 1970 under which the State reimburses private schools throughout the State for certain costs of testing and recordkeeping, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A three-judge District Court, with one judge dissenting, held the Act unconstitutional. 342 F.Supp. 439 (S.D.N.Y.1972). We noted probable jurisdiction. 409 U.S. 977, 93 S.Ct. 316, 34 L.Ed.2d 240.

I

In April 1970, the New York Legislature appropriated $28,000,000 for the purpose of reimbursing nonpublic schools throughout the State

'for expenses of services for examination and inspection in connection with administration, grading and the compiling and reporting of the results of tests and examinations, maintenance of records of pupil enrollment and reporting thereon, maintenance of pupil health records, recording of personnel qualifications and characteristics and the preparation and submission to the state of various other reports as provided for or required by law or regulation.'1 New York Laws 1970, c. 138, § 2.

As indicated by the portion of the statute quoted above, the State has in essence sought to reimburse private schools for performing various 'services' which the State 'mandates.' Of these mandated services, by far the most expensive for nonpublic schools is the 'administration, grading and the compiling and reporting of the results of tests and examinations.' Such 'tests and examinations' appear to be of two kinds: (a) state-prepared examinations, such as the 'Regents examinations' and the 'Pupil Evaluation Program Tests.' 2 and (b) traditional teacher-prepared tests, which are drafted by the nonpublic school teachers for the purpose of measuring the pupils' progress in subjects required to be taught under state law.3 The overwhelming majority of testing in nonpublic, as well as public, schools is of the latter variety.

Church-sponsored as well as secular nonpublic schools are eligible to receive payments under the Act. The District Court made findings that the Commissioner of Education had 'construed and applied' the Act 'to include as permissible beneficiaries schools which (a) impose religious restrictions on admissions; (b) require attendance of pupils at religious activities; (c) require obedience by students to the doctrines and dogmas of a particular faith; (d) require pupils to attend instruction in the theology or doctrine of a particular faith; (e) are an integral part of the religious mission of the church sponsoring it; (f) have as a substantial purpose the inculcation of religious values; (g) impose religious restrictions on faculty appointments; and (h) impose religious restrictions on what or how the faculty may teach.' 342 F.Supp., at 440—441.

A school seeking aid under the Act is required to submit an application to the Commissioner of Education, who may direct the applicant to file 'such additional reports' as he deems necessary to make a determination of eligibility. New York Laws 1970, c. 138, § 4. Qualifying schools receive an annual payment of $27 for each pupil in average daily attendance in grades one through six and $45 for each pupil in average daily attendance in grades seven through 12.4 Payments are made in two installments: Between January 15 and March 15 of the school year, one-half of the 'estimated total apportionment' is paid directly to the school; the balance is paid between April 15 and June 15. The Commissioner is empowered to make 'later payments for the purpose of adjusting and correcting apportionments.' Id., § 5.

Section 8 of the Act states: 'Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to authorize the making of any payment under this act for religious worship or instruction.' However, the Act contains no provision authorizing state audits of School financial records to determine whether a school's actual costs in complying with the mandated services are less than the annual lump sum payment. Nor does the Act require a school to return to the State moneys received in excess of its actual expenses.5 In appellant Nyquist's answers to appellees' interrogatories, which the parties stipulated could be 'taken as accepted facts for the purposes of this case,' the Commissioner stated that 'qualifying schools are not required to submit reports accounting for the moneys received and how they are expended.'

II

Appellees are New York taxpayers and an unincorporated association. They filed this suit in the United States District Court claiming that Chapter 138 abridges the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. An injunction was sought enjoining appellants Levitt and Nyquist, the State Comptroller and Commissioner of Education, respectively, from enforcing the Act. State Senator Earl W. Brydges and certain Catholic and Jewish parochial schools qualified to receive aid under the Act were permitted to intervene as parties defendant.

A three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284. After a hearing on the merits, a majority of the District Court permanently enjoined appellants from enforcement of the Act. The District Court concluded that this case was controlled by our decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), and held the Act unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.

In reaching its decision, the District Court rejected appellants' argument that the Act is constitutional because payments are made only for services that are 'secular, neutral, or nonideological' in character. Id., at 616, 91 S.Ct., at 2113. The court stated:

'By far the greatest portion of the funds appropriated under Chapter 138 is paid for the services of teachers in testing students, and testing is an integral part of the teaching process.' 342 F.Supp. at 444.

Likewise, the court dismissed as 'fanciful' the contention that a State may reimburse church-related schools for costs incurred in performing any service 'mandated' by state law.

To continue reading

Request your trial
95 cases
  • Minnesota Federation of Teachers v. Nelson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • July 2, 1990
    ...Committee of Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973); Levitt v. Committee for Public Education, 413 U.S. 472, 93 S.Ct. 2814, 37 L.Ed.2d 736 (1973); Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971); Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 6......
  • Rogers v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-01567-TMC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • May 8, 2020
    ...power ‘[is] used exclusively for secular, neutral, and nonideological purposes.’ " Id. (quoting Levitt v. Comm. for Pub. Ed. , 413 U.S. 472, 480, 93 S.Ct. 2814, 37 L.Ed.2d 736 (1973) ; Comm. for Pub. Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist , 413 U.S. 756, 780, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973......
  • Helms v. Cody
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • June 10, 1994
    ...The United States Supreme Court has had two required services programs before it for its review: Levitt v. Committee for Public Education, 413 U.S. 472, 93 S.Ct. 2814, 37 L.Ed.2d 736 (1973), and Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 100 S.Ct. 840, 63 L.E......
  • Roberts v. Madigan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • January 5, 1989
    ...are not, through their classroom conduct, violating the guidelines of the Establishment Clause." Levitt v. Committee for Public Education, 413 U.S. 472, 93 S.Ct. 2814, 37 L.Ed.2d 736 (1973). Madigan, as principal of Berkeley Gardens and Roberts' direct superior, is empowered to regulate Rob......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Condemning Worship: Religious Liberty Protections and Church Takings.
    • United States
    • October 1, 2020
    ...for Pub. Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 77475 (1973); Levitt v. Comm. for Pub. Educ. & Religious Liberty, 413 U.S. 472, 476-80 (1973); Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 607 (1971); Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 682, 687 (1971); Bd. of Educ. v. Allen, 392 U.......
  • Beyond the Conventional Establishment Clause Narrative
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 28-02, December 2004
    • Invalid date
    ...236 (1968). 156. Id. at 238. 157. Id. at 242 (citing Everson, 330 U.S. 1, 17(1947)). 158. Id. at 243-44. 159. 413 U.S. 734 (1973). 160. 413 U.S. 472 161. Hunt, 413 U.S. at 736. 162. Id. at 736-737. 163. Id. at 738. 164. Id. at 741-44. 165. levitt, 413 U.S. at 474. 166. Id. at 476. 167. Id. ......
  • UNTANGLING ENTANGLEMENT.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 97 No. 6, August 2020
    • August 1, 2020
    ...and Activities, in MODERN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [section] 10:13 (3d ed. 2017). (92.) Levitt v. Comm, for Pub. Educ. & Religious Liberty, 413 U.S. 472,482 (93.) Id. at 481-82. (94.) Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 255 (1977), overruled by Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000). (95.) Id. (9......
  • Science, Freedom of Conscience and the Establishment Clause
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 13-01, September 1989
    • Invalid date
    ...subjects to be taught, the state could pay the expenses associated with teaching the subjects. Levitt v. Committee for Public Education, 413 U.S. 472 (1973). After Levitt, New York revised its legislation so that parochial schools were reimbursed only for the cost of administering state pre......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT