## Facts

- Minnesota allowed state income-tax deductions for dependent children’s elementary or secondary school expenses, limited to “tuition, textbooks and transportation.”
- The deduction was available to parents whose children attended public schools, private nonsectarian schools, or private sectarian (parochial) schools.
- Minnesota taxpayers challenged the deduction as violating the Establishment Clause by financially assisting sectarian education.
- The federal district court granted summary judgment for the state, finding the deduction neutral and not primarily advancing religion.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a state income-tax deduction for K–12 tuition, textbook, and transportation expenses, available for both public and nonpublic schooling (including religious schools), violates the Establishment Clause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed and held the deduction constitutional under the Establishment Clause.
- Applying the Lemon test, the Court found: (1) a secular purpose, (2) no primary effect of advancing religion, and (3) no excessive government entanglement with religion.
- The Court emphasized the deduction’s facial neutrality and broad availability to parents regardless of school type.
- The Court concluded any benefit to religious schools resulted from independent parental decisions, not direct state aid to schools.
- The Court rejected reliance on annual statistical distributions showing that many beneficiaries were parents of parochial-school students.
- The dissent argued the deduction operated as a subsidy that incentivized enrollment in sectarian schools and was materially similar to unconstitutional tuition-assistance schemes.

## Legal Principles

- Under Lemon, a school-related tax benefit does not violate the Establishment Clause if it has a secular purpose, its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and it avoids excessive church–state entanglement.
- A generally available, religion-neutral tax deduction may be upheld even if some taxpayers use it for religious-school expenses.
- For “effect” analysis, broad eligibility criteria and private choice can render any aid to religious institutions indirect and insufficient to constitute unconstitutional advancement of religion.
- Year-to-year empirical patterns of who benefits do not alone establish unconstitutional effect when the program’s structure is neutral.
- Minimal administrative review to verify deductible expenses, comparable to ordinary tax administration, does not amount to excessive entanglement.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Minnesota’s education-expense deduction because it served secular educational aims, applied neutrally to a broad class of parents, and provided only indirect, choice-mediated financial benefit to religious schools without creating excessive church–state involvement.


Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983)