Mitchell v. Helms

[1] In turn, educational materials and equipment were lent to public and private elementary and secondary schools to implement "secular, neutral, and non ideological" programs.[2] In an average year, about 30% of Chapter 2 funds spent in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, were distributed to Catholic or religious private schools.[3] Lee Boothby, representing parents who opposed the aid program in Louisiana, said the issue at stake was "our historic commitment that taxpayers not be required to subsidize religious schools.[4] Mary Helms and other public school parents file suit alleging that Chapter 2, as applied in Jefferson Parish, violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.The Court ruled that the loans were acceptable because they did not represent a governmental indoctrination or advancement of religion.
Supreme Court of the United StatesL. Ed. 2dU.S. LEXISWilliam RehnquistJohn P. StevensSandra Day O'ConnorAntonin ScaliaAnthony KennedyDavid SouterClarence ThomasRuth Bader GinsburgStephen BreyerU.S. Const. amend. IUnited States Supreme CourtJefferson Parish, LouisianaLemon testAgostini v. FeltonJustice ThomasLemon v. KurtzmanWayback MachineU.S. Supreme CourtEstablishment ClauseFirst Amendment to the United States ConstitutionMarsh v. ChambersLynch v. DonnellyBoard of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCrearyCounty of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties UnionVan Orden v. PerryMcCreary County v. American Civil Liberties UnionPleasant Grove City v. SummumSalazar v. BuonoTown of Greece v. GallowayAmerican Legion v. American Humanist AssociationWalz v. Tax Comm'n of the City of New YorkBob Jones University v. United StatesEstate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.Corp. of Presiding Bishop v. AmosTexas Monthly, Inc. v. BullockCity of Boerne v. FloresCutter v. WilkinsonEverson v. Board of EducationFlast v. CohenTilton v. RichardsonCommittee for Public Education v. NyquistValley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & StateMueller v. AllenAguilar v. FeltonWitters v. Washington Department of Services for the BlindZobrest v. Catalina Foothills School DistrictBoard of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. GrumetZelman v. Simmons-HarrisLocke v. DaveyArizona Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. WinnTrinity Lutheran Church v. ComerEspinoza v. Montana Department of RevenueCarson v. MakinOklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. DrummondMcCollum v. Board of EducationZorach v. ClausonEngel v. VitaleAbington School District v. SchemppEpperson v. ArkansasStone v. GrahamWallace v. JaffreeEdwards v. AguillardWestside Community Board of Ed. v. MergensLee v. WeismanSanta Fe Ind. School Dist. v. DoeElk Grove Unif. School Dist. v. NewdowKennedy v. Bremerton School Dist.Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist.Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. PinetteRosenberger v. Univ. of VirginiaGood News Club v. Milford Central SchoolShurtleff v. City of BostonWatson v. JonesUnited States v. BallardPresbyterian Church v. Hull ChurchSerbian Orthodox Diocese v. MilivojevichHein v. Freedom From Religion FoundationBlue lawsMcGowan v. MarylandBraunfeld v. BrownTorcaso v. WatkinsMcDaniel v. PatyHarris v. McRaeLarkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc.Bowen v. KendrickTrump v. Hawaii