## Facts

- Maryland enacted a statute authorizing annual state grants to qualifying private colleges based on enrollment in non-seminary, non-theology programs.
- Eligibility excluded institutions awarding only seminary or theological degrees; the program was aimed at supporting higher education generally.
- A later amendment provided that grant funds could not be used for sectarian purposes.
- The Maryland Council for Higher Education determined institutional eligibility, required assurances of nonsectarian use, and could verify compliance through reports and audits.
- Four Roman Catholic–affiliated colleges received grants under the program.
- Maryland taxpayers sued state officials and the recipient colleges, alleging the grants violated the Establishment Clause because the colleges’ religious character made them ineligible for public aid.
- A three-judge federal district court upheld the statute, finding the recipient colleges were not pervasively sectarian, the aid supported only secular functions, and the compliance mechanisms did not require intrusive supervision.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland’s annual grant program providing noncategorical aid to private, religiously affiliated colleges for nonsectarian purposes violates the Establishment Clause.
2. Whether providing operating subsidies to church-affiliated colleges has the primary effect of advancing religion when the colleges are not pervasively sectarian and funds are restricted to secular uses.
3. Whether the reporting and audit mechanisms needed to enforce nonsectarian-use restrictions create excessive government entanglement with religion.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the program in a divided decision; no single opinion commanded a majority.
- A plurality applied the Lemon framework and relied on prior approval of aid to religiously affiliated colleges subject to secular-use restrictions.
- The plurality accepted findings that the recipient colleges, despite formal religious affiliation, were not pervasively sectarian and operated with substantial academic freedom.
- The plurality concluded the statute had a secular purpose and that its primary effect was to support secular higher education rather than advance religion.
- The plurality held that compliance measures (reports and possible audits) were limited to verifying expenditures and did not require monitoring instruction for religious content, so entanglement was not excessive.
- A concurring Justice agreed in the judgment and questioned treating entanglement as an independent basis for invalidation where secular purpose and neutral primary effect are satisfied.
- Dissents argued that general operating support to religiously affiliated institutions risked subsidizing religion and could necessitate intrusive oversight.

## Legal Principles

- Under Lemon, government aid to religiously affiliated colleges is permissible if it serves a secular purpose, does not have the primary effect of advancing religion, and does not create excessive entanglement.
- Religious affiliation alone does not bar receipt of public funds; a key consideration is whether the institution is pervasively sectarian such that secular and religious functions cannot realistically be separated.
- Statutory restrictions limiting funds to nonsectarian uses, coupled with neutral administration and verification focused on expenditures rather than curriculum or doctrine, support constitutionality.
- Oversight to enforce nonsectarian-use conditions may be required; it becomes unconstitutional only if it entails sustained, intrusive supervision of religious matters.

## Conclusion

Maryland’s higher-education grant program was upheld because it pursued a secular goal of supporting higher education, was applied to colleges found not pervasively sectarian, restricted funds to nonsectarian uses, and relied on limited fiscal oversight that did not amount to excessive church–state entanglement.


Roemer v. Bd. of Pub. Works of Md., 426 U.S. 736 (1976)