Citation: Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
Topic: Taxpayers paying for transportation of children in private schools
Issue:
The issue is that the plan was considered to be unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clause (part of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution) and the Establishment Clause. Another concern of the court was that the boundary lines between church and state were being crossed in this case.
Facts:
o A tax funded school district in New Jersey made up a plan that allowed reimbursing schools for the transportation of private school students. A taxpayer challenged that this violated the Constitution prohibiting state support of religion and it violated the Due Process Clause
o This plan created by the district was acting under a statute that allowed schools to regulate the transportation of students.
o A state court had ruled that the plan the school district had developed was unconstitutional, but the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey reversed that decision.
o It was argued in November of 1946 and decided on February 10, 1947
o It was thought to violate the Due Process Clause which says that the government must respect all the legal rights that are due to a person according to the law
o The plan was believed to breach the Establishment Clause which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and is part of the First Amendment to the Unites States Constitution.
Findings:
The vote was 5-4 in favor of the school district plan to reimburse schools for transportation of students in private schools.
Chief Justice Vinson, along with Black, Reed, Douglas, and Murphy voted in favor of the plan
Justices Rutledge, Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton opposed
Rationale:
Justice Black represented the majority opinion. He said that paying for the buses didn’t violate the Establishment Clause. The authorization of this plan did not improperly assist schools in gaining more students because they had transportation. He compared this plan to taxpayers paying for policemen and firemen who protect the children in the private (parochial) schools. He also said it was said it was permissible because they reimbursed students of all religions and the payments were made to the parents and not to any religious establishment.
Justice Rutledge represented the dissenting opinion. He said that the plan did in fact violate the Establishment Clause because the money was taken from taxes that are taken from people from all religions or faiths. That money was then used to further the religious education of students with other religions or faiths and that violates what the Establishment Clause. He said that if this is allowed on the grounds that it promotes education, why not pay for all costs of schooling.
Implications:
The court case was the first to incorporate the Establishment Clause. Since then there have been many similar cases that deal with the separation of church and state and the figurative wall that divides the two. It has been a long struggle to balance the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It is also a struggle for educators. While transportation is the issue in this court case, I think a larger issue is more important to educators. Everyone is guaranteed the right to free speech and to choose and practice their own religion, so educators must be wary of the affiliations that they may have. Just because a teacher is a practicing Catholic, Jew, Muslim, or any other religion does not give them the right to force their own thoughts and beliefs unto the students. There is a line, albeit a thin line, separating church and state.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0330_0001_ZS.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/ever_v_boar.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=330&invol=1
