EVERSON

EVERSON

v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING ET AL.

330 U.S. 1

November 20, 1946, Argued

February 10, 1947, Decided

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY.

Messrs. Edward R. Burke and E. Hilton Jackson, both of Washington, D. C.,
for appellant.

Mr. William H. Speer, of Jersey City, for appellees.

 

Syllabus

1 Pursuant to a New Jersey statute
authorizing district boards of education to make rules and contracts for the
transportation of children to and from schools other than private schools
operated for profit, a board of education by resolution authorized the
reimbursement of parents for fares paid for the transportation by public
carrier of children attending public and Catholic schools. The Catholic schools
operated under the superintendency of a Catholic priest and, in addition to
secular education, gave religious instruction in the Catholic Faith. A district
taxpayer challenged the validity under the Federal Constitution of the statute
and resolution so far as they authorized reimbursement to parents for the
transportation of children attending sectarian schools. No question was raised
as to whether the exclusion of private schools operated for profit denied equal
protection of the laws; nor did the record show that there were any children in
the district who attended, or would have attended but for the cost of
transportation, any but public or Catholic schools.

Held:

1.
The expenditure of tax raised funds thus authorized was for a public purpose,
and did not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

EVERSON

EVERSON

v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING ET AL.

330 U.S. 1

November 20, 1946, Argued

February 10, 1947, Decided

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY.

 

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

A New Jersey statute authorizes its local school districts to make rules and
contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools. 1 The
appellee, a township board of education, acting pursuant to this statute
authorized reimbursement to parents of money expended by them for the bus
transportation of their children on regular busses operated by the public
transportation system. Part of this money was for the payment of transportation
of some children in the community to Catholic parochial schools. These church
schools give their students, in addition to secular education, regular
religious instruction conforming to the religious tenets and modes of worship
of the Catholic Faith. The superintendent of these schools is a Catholic
priest.

The appellant, in his capacity as a district taxpayer, filed suit in a State
court challenging the right of the Board to reimburse parents of parochial
school students. He [330 U.S. 1,
4]   contended that the statute and the resolution passed pursuant
to it violated both the State and the Federal Constitutions. That court held
hat the legislature was without power to authorize such payment under the State
constitution. 132 N.J.L. 98, 39 A.2d 75. The New Jersey Court of Errors and
Appeals reversed, holding that neither the statute nor the resolution passed
pursuant to it was in conflict with the State constitution or the provisions of
the Federal Constitution in issue. 133 N. J.L. 350, 44 A.2d 333. The case is
here on appeal under 28 U.S.C. 344(a), 28 U.S.C.A. 344(a).

Since there has been no attack on the statute on the ground that a part of
its language excludes children attending private schools operated for profit
from enjoying state payment for their transportation, we need not consider this

EVERSON

EVERSON

v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING ET AL.

330 U.S. 1

November 20, 1946, Argued

February 10, 1947, Decided

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY.

 

Mr. Justice JACKSON, dissenting.

I find myself, contrary to first impressions, unable to join in this
decision. I have a sympathy, though it is not ideological, with Catholic
citizens who are compelled by law to pay taxes for public schools, and also
feel constrained by conscience and discipline to support other schools for
their own children. Such reli f to them as [330 U.S. 1, 19]   this case involves is not in
itself a serious burden to taxpayers and I had assumed it to be as little
serious in principle. Study of this case convinces me otherwise. The Court's opinion
marshals every argument in favor of state aid and puts the case in its most
favorable light, but much of its reasoning confirms my conclusions that there
are no good grounds upon which to support the present legislation. In fact, the
undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of
Church from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding support
to their commingling in educational matters. The case which irresistibly comes
to mind as the most fitting precedent is that of Julia who, according to
Byron's reports, 'whispering 'I will ne'er consent,'- consented.'

I.

The Court sustains this legislation by assuming two deviations from the
facts of this particular case; first, it assumes a state of facts the record
does not support, and secondly, it refuses to consider facts which are
inescapable on the record.

The Court concludes that this 'legislation, as applied, does no more than
provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of their
religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools,' and it
draws a comparison between 'state provisions intended to guarantee free

EVERSON

EVERSON

v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING ET AL.

330 U.S. 1

November 20, 1946, Argued

February 10, 1947, Decided

 

APPENDIX.

MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE AGAINST RELIGIOUS AS SESSMENTS.

TO THE HONORABLE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

A MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE.

We, the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into
serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General
Assembly, entitled 'A [330 U.S. 1,
64]   Bill establishing a provision for teachers of the Christian
Religion,' and conceiving that the same, if finally armed with the sanctions of
a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a
free State, to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we
are determined. We remonstruate against the said Bill,

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, 'that
religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of
discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or
violence.' 1 The
Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of
every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may
dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable;
because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by
their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable
also; because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator.
It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such
only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is predecent both in
order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before
any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered