Scribd
Upload
239 views2 pages

#32 Board of Education vs. Allen

The Board of Education sued the Commissioner of Education claiming that a New York law requiring local authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to all students, including those attending private religious schools, violated the state and federal constitutions. The trial court found the law unconstitutional but the appellate division reversed, saying the Board lacked standing. The Court of Appeals said the Board did have standing but that the law did not violate the Establishment Clause as its primary purpose and effect was not the advancement of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, finding that lending textbooks to students did not constitute impermissible government support of religion.

Uploaded by

Aubrey Aquino
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
239 views2 pages

#32 Board of Education vs. Allen

The Board of Education sued the Commissioner of Education claiming that a New York law requiring local authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to all students, including those attending private religious schools, violated the state and federal constitutions. The trial court found the law unconstitutional but the appellate division reversed, saying the Board lacked standing. The Court of Appeals said the Board did have standing but that the law did not violate the Establishment Clause as its primary purpose and effect was not the advancement of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, finding that lending textbooks to students did not constitute impermissible government support of religion.

Uploaded by

Aubrey Aquino
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

#32 BOARD OF EDUCATION VS.

ALLEN
FACTS:

 New York’s Education Law requires “local public school authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to all
students in grade seven (7) to twelve (12), including those in private schools.”
 Appellant Board of Education of Central School District No. 1 in Renesselaer and Columbia Countries, brought
a suit in the New York courts against appellee James Allen (Commissioner of Education) alleging that Section
701 of the Education Law violated both the state and Federal Constitution; that, if appellants, in reliance on
their interpretation of the Constitution, failed to lend books to parochial school students within their
countries, Allen would remove appellants from office.
 To prevent this, the appellants were complying with the law submitting to their constituents a school budget
including funds for books to be lent to parochial school pupils.
 As a result, Appellants therefore sought a declaration that section 701 was invalid, ordering to bar Allen from
removing appellants’ member from office for failing to comply with it, and another order restraining him from
apportioning state funds to school district for the purchase of textbooks to be lent to parochial students.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

 TRIAL COURT: Held the law unconstitutional.


 APPELLATE DIVISION: Reversed the decision on the ground that appellants had no standing to attack the
validity of a state statue.
 COURT OF APPEALS: Concluded that the Appellants did have standing (by the vote of 4-3), but, Section 701
was not in violation of either the State or Federal Constitution (by another vote of 4-3).

ISSUE:

 Whether or not the New York’s Education Law is a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the exercise thereof, and so in conflict with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution,
because it authorizes the loan of textbooks to students attending parochial schools.

HELD:

No. It is not in violation of the Constitution.

In the case of Everson v. Board of Education, a case decided by the same court that is most nearly in the point
for the present problem, also Zorach, McGowan, and other cases, fashioned a test subscribed to by eight Justices for
distinguishing between forbidden involvements of the state with religion and those contacts which the Establishment
Clause permits:

“The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is
the advancement or inhibition of religion, then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed
by the Constitution. That is to say that, to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause, there must be a secular
legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion…”

In this case, the express purpose of section 701 was stated by the New York Legislature to be furtherance of
the educational opportunities available to the young. Appellants have shown nothing about the necessary effects of
the statute that is contrary to its stated purpose. The law merely makes available to all children the benefits of a
general program to lend school books free of charge. Books are furnished at the request of the pupil and ownership
remains, at least technically, in the state. Thus, no funds or books are furnished to parochial schools, and the financial
benefit is to parents and the children, not to schools.
Furthermore, Appellants contends that Section 701 offends the Free Exercise of the first Amendment.
However, “it is necessary that in a free exercise case for one to show the coercive effect of the enactment as it
operates against him in the practice of his religion,” and appellants have not contended that the New York Education
Law coerces them as individuals in the practice of their religion.

You might also like