Victor Jaquez Everson v.

Board of Education February 11, 2015

A.P. Government & Politics 2141

The Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education was an incredibly important
landmark decision regarding the Bill of Rights and the States. Through this case, the
Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights was applied to State law when prior to this case, states
exercised immunity to this statute. A taxpayer brought the case against a tax-funded school
district that provided reimbursement to parents of both public and private school children taking
public transportation in a New Jersey Court. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in
the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.

Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as
made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment? No. A divided Court held that
the law did not violate the Constitution. After detailing the history and importance of the
Establishment Clause, Justice Black argued that services like bussing and police and fire
protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious
function" that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment. The law did
not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was simply a
law enacted as a "general program" to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to
school.

This case stands for the proposition that, while no law respecting an establishment of religion
will stand under the United States Constitution (Constitution), neutral laws, which afford benefits
to children will be upheld. Held. Affirmed.
In affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court found the statute was not
unconstitutional because it was designed to provide a benefit to the parents of all school children,
distinct from any religious function in which the children engaged. The dissents of Justice
Robert Jackson (J. Jackson) and Justice Wiley Rutledge (J. Rutledge) stand for strict adherence
to the establishment clause. It is important to understand, in striking down the Establishment
Clause challenge, the Supreme Court highlights the fact that funds cannot be commingled when
they are reimbursed only for transportation costs already expended. Thus, because there is no
possibility of funding parochial activities in themselves, the statute is allowed to stand.