Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing

1947-03-10

Headline: State reimbursement for bus fares upheld, allowing public funds to cover transport for parochial school children as part of a neutral school-transport program affecting parents and taxpayers.

Holding: The Court held that a state law reimbursing parents for bus fares, including for children attending parochial schools, did not violate the Constitution’s ban on establishing religion because it was a neutral general program.

Real World Impact:

Permits state reimbursement of public transit fares for parochial school students under neutral programs.
Treats transportation subsidies as general welfare, not direct funding of religious schools.
Leaves room for future challenges about discriminatory rules or other forms of aid.

Topics: separation of church and state, school transportation, religious schools, taxes and public funding

Summary

Background

A township board in New Jersey used a state law to reimburse parents for regular public-bus fares when their children rode to school, including Catholic parochial schools. A local taxpayer sued, arguing the reimbursements violated the State and Federal Constitutions. New Jersey’s lower court struck the payments down; the State’s highest court reversed, and the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether using tax money to reimburse fares for children who attend religious schools unlawfully established religion or failed due process. The Court’s majority, led by Justice Black, said the law was a neutral, general program to help children get safely to accredited schools. The majority emphasized that the State did not give money to the schools themselves, treated all students alike under the program, and that providing general transportation benefits did not amount to support of a church.

Real world impact

The ruling allows similar state or local programs to reimburse or otherwise help with transportation costs for students who attend religious schools so long as the program is neutral and part of a general public service. The opinion acknowledged many states faced the same issue and that courts were divided. The decision leaves room for future legal questions about different facts or funding methods.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Jackson and Rutledge dissented, warning this reimbursement effectively subsidizes religious instruction and breaks the constitutional “wall” between church and state. They stressed historical objections to taxing citizens to support religion and pointed to the resolution’s limited application to public and Catholic schools as a problematic, discriminatory feature.