Board of Education v Allen

329 US 236, 1968

FACTS
A 1965 amendment to New York's Education Law required public school boards to
lend textbooks to elementary and secondary school students enrolled in private
and parochial schools. The Board of Education for New York Central School
District No. 1, contending that the law violated the Establishment and Free
Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, filed suit against James Allen,
Commissioner of Education, requesting a declaratory injunction to prevent
enforcement of the statute. The trial court agreed with the board and found the
statute unconstitutional. The Appellate Division reversed the ruling, finding that
the boards lacked standing. On appeal, the New York Court of Appeals ruled the
boards did have standing, but also found that, because the law's purpose was to
benefit all students regardless of the type of school they attended, the law did
not violate the First Amendment.
ISSUE
Do the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment forbid
New York from requiring that public school boards loan textbooks to parochial
school students without cost?
HELD
No. The statute does not violate the Establishment or the Free Exercise Clause of
the First Amendment. Pp. 241-249.
(1) The express purpose of the statute was the furtherance of educational
opportunities for the young, and the law merely makes available to all children
the benefits of a general program to lend school books free of charge, and the
financial benefit is to parents and children, not to schools. Everson v. Board of
Education, 330 U.S. 1. Pp. 243-244.
(2) There is no evidence that religious books have been loaned, and it cannot be
assumed that school authorities are unable to distinguish between secular and
religious books, or that they will not honestly discharge their duties to approve
only secular books. Pp. 244-245. [p237]
(3) Parochial schools, in addition to their sectarian function, perform the task of
secular education, and, on the basis of this meager record, the Court cannot
agree with appellants that all teaching in a sectarian school is religious, or that
the intertwining of secular and religious training is such that secular textbooks
furnished to students are, in fact, instrumental in teaching religion. Pp. 245-248.
(4) In the absence of specific evidence, and based solely on judicial notice, it
cannot be concluded that the statute results in unconstitutional state
involvement with religious instruction or violates the Establishment Clause. P.
248.
(5) Since appellants have not shown that the law coerces them in any way in the
practice of religion, there is no violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Pp. 248-249.