## Facts

- New York enacted a statutory scheme providing financial assistance connected to nonpublic elementary and secondary education through three programs.
- The first program provided direct “maintenance and repair” grants to qualifying nonprofit nonpublic schools serving large numbers of low-income students, calculated per pupil and capped relative to comparable public-school costs.
- The second program reimbursed parents with low taxable income for a portion of nonpublic-school tuition, with fixed per-student amounts and a cap based on actual tuition paid.
- The third program allowed a state income tax deduction per child attending a nonpublic school for parents not eligible for the reimbursement; the deduction was not tied to actual tuition and decreased as income increased.
- In practice, nearly all qualifying nonpublic schools were religious, primarily Roman Catholic.
- Taxpayers and organizations challenged the statute in federal court as violating the Establishment Clause.
- The district court invalidated the maintenance grants and tuition reimbursements but upheld the tax deduction; both sides appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether New York’s maintenance and repair grants to qualifying nonpublic schools violated the Establishment Clause.
2. Whether New York’s tuition reimbursement payments to low-income parents of nonpublic-school students violated the Establishment Clause.
3. Whether New York’s income tax deduction for parents of nonpublic-school students violated the Establishment Clause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held, 6–3, that all three programs violated the Establishment Clause.
- The Court affirmed the invalidation of the maintenance grants and tuition reimbursements.
- The Court reversed the ruling upholding the tax deduction.
- The Court concluded the programs failed because their primary effect was to advance religion.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Lemon test, a statute must (1) have a secular purpose, (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion; failure on any prong is unconstitutional.
- Financial assistance linked to attendance at religious schools is unconstitutional where the program’s structure and practical operation make the aid flow predominantly to sectarian education.
- Direct aid nominally for school operations is constitutionally suspect when not limited to clearly secular uses, particularly where the beneficiary class is overwhelmingly sectarian.
- Indirect aid to parents (reimbursements or tax benefits) can still violate the Establishment Clause when it functions as a targeted economic incentive for religious-school enrollment.
- Tax benefits that are narrowly tailored to private-school attendance, and that chiefly benefit parents of parochial-school students, differ from broad, historically rooted exemptions available across a wide range of nonprofit entities.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated New York’s grant, reimbursement, and tax-deduction programs for nonpublic schooling because, even assuming a secular purpose, their design and practical operation provided financial support that primarily advanced religious education, violating the Establishment Clause.


Committee for Pub. Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973)