Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist

Supreme Court of the United States · 1973 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEstablishment ClauseReligion and EducationEstablishment Clausestate aid to sectarian schoolstuition reimbursementtax benefitsmaintenance and repair grants

Facts

New York enacted a law creating three aid programs for nonpublic elementary and secondary schools: direct maintenance and repair grants to qualifying nonpublic schools, tuition reimbursements to low-income parents of children attending nonpublic schools, and income tax benefits for other parents paying nonpublic school tuition. The qualifying schools were overwhelmingly sectarian, and approximately 85% of New York's nonpublic schools were church affiliated. The maintenance grants were not limited to facilities used exclusively for secular purposes, and the tuition reimbursements and tax benefits imposed no restrictions on the ultimate use of the aid. The legislature justified the law by citing child welfare, educational pluralism, and the financial pressures on both nonpublic and public schools.

Issue

Whether New York's direct maintenance and repair grants to sectarian schools, tuition reimbursements to parents of children attending nonpublic schools, and tax benefits for such parents violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. More specifically, the question was whether these forms of aid had the primary effect of advancing religion.

Rule

Under the Establishment Clause, a law must have a clearly secular legislative purpose, must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and must avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. Even where the State's purposes are secular, direct or indirect financial aid is invalid if it is not sufficiently restricted to ensure that public funds support only secular, neutral, and nonideological functions and instead has the effect of advancing the sectarian activities of religious schools.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Illinois creates an annual grant program for nonprofit K-12 schools in Chicago and Peoria that serve many low-income students. Qualifying schools receive up to $45 per pupil for heat, lighting, janitorial services, snow removal, and building repairs, with no requirement that the funded spaces be used only for secular instruction; most qualifying schools are church-affiliated.

If challenged under the Establishment Clause, which is the strongest argument against the program?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that even when the State has a secular purpose, aid is unconstitutional if it is not sufficiently restricted to ensure support only for secular, neutral, and nonideological functions. Direct grants for maintenance and repair to sectarian elementary and secondary schools are invalid where the statute does not bar use of funds for chapels, religion classrooms, or other religiously used facilities. The majority treated this as a failure of the effect prong, not as a purpose or entanglement issue.