EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Appeal from the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey.

Justice BlackDoctrine: The establishment Clause does not prevent a State from extending the benefits of state laws to all citizens without regard for their religious affiliation and does not prohibit tax raised funds to form part of a general program under which students from both public and private parochial schools may benefitFacts: A New Jersey statute authorizes its local school districts to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools. 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. 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

State court held that the legislature was without power to authorize such payment under the State constitution. The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals reversed, holding that neither the statute nor the resolution passed pursuant to it was in conflict with the State constitution or the provisions of the Federal Constitution in issue.

ISSUES and JUDGMENTS1. Whether or not the New Jersey statute providing free bus fares for students from any type of school violates the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process Clause)? NO

Contention: The statute authorizes 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 argument, if valid, would apply equally to prohibit state payment for the transportation of children to any non- public 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 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.2. Whether or not such statute is contrary to the prohibition embodied in the First Amendment (Non-establishment clause)? NOContention: 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. The New Jersey statute is challenged as a 'law respecting an establishment of religion.'History: A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government favored churches. Dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters. It reached its dramatic climax in Virginia in 1785-86 when the Virginia legislative body was about to renew Virginia's tax levy for the support of the established church Madison and Jefferson led the fight against this tax

Madison : a true religion did not need the support of law; that no person, either believer or non-believer, should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind

Jefferson: to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical

Non-establishment clause: State 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

The Fourteenth Amendment did not strip the states of their power to meet problems previously left for individual solution There was difficulty in drawing the line between tax legislation which provides funds for the welfare of the general public and that which is designed to support institutions which teach religion.

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

The amendment commands that New Jersey cannot hamper its citizens in the free exercise of their own religion. Consequently, it cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Non-believers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation.

The First Amendment requires the state to be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions, than it is to favor them

The decision of the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, holding that neither the statute nor the resolution passed pursuant to it was in conflict with the State constitution or the provisions of the Federal Constitution in issue is AFFIRMEDWIKEPEDIA

Summary: After repealing a former ban, aNew Jerseylaw authorized payment by local school boards of the costs of transportation to and from schools - including private schools. Of the private schools that benefited from this policy, 96% were parochialCatholic schools. Arch R. Everson, a taxpayer inEwing Township, filed a lawsuit alleging that this indirect aid to religion through the mechanism of reimbursing parents and students for costs incurred as a result of attending religious schools violated both theNew Jersey state constitutionand theFirst Amendment. After a loss in theNew Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, then the state's highest court, Everson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on purely federal constitutional grounds. The US SC affirmed the appealed decision (5-4 decision).