Levitt v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty
Headline: New York’s law reimbursing private schools for testing and recordkeeping is struck down, blocking lump‑sum per‑pupil payments that could fund religious instruction and affect church‑related schools.
Holding:
- Blocks lump‑sum per‑pupil payments to religiously affiliated schools for testing and records.
- Requires states to identify and limit aid to clearly secular school functions.
- Shifts responsibility to legislatures to redesign funding to avoid aiding religion.
Summary
Background
In 1970 the New York Legislature appropriated funds to reimburse nonpublic schools for state‑mandated services such as administering tests, maintaining pupil and health records, and reporting to the State. The law provided lump‑sum per‑pupil payments ($27 for grades 1–6 and $45 for grades 7–12) to both secular and church‑sponsored schools. The statute did not require audited accounting or repayment of any excess funds. New York taxpayers and an association sued, and a three‑judge District Court permanently enjoined enforcement of the law under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Reasoning
The Court examined whether the payments have the primary effect of advancing religion. It stressed that teacher‑prepared tests are an integral part of teaching and could carry religious content when produced by religious schools. Because Chapter 138 made a single lump‑sum payment covering a mix of secular and potentially religious services and provided no way to identify or separate secular expenditures, the State could not assure that aid would not support religious instruction. The Court distinguished earlier cases upholding narrowly defined aid like transportation or textbooks and concluded that this statute’s structure risks subsidizing religious activities. The Court therefore affirmed the District Court’s judgment.
Real world impact
The decision bars New York from making undifferentiated per‑pupil payments to sectarian schools for testing and recordkeeping unless the State can identify and limit funds to clearly secular uses. The Court noted that reallocating or dividing the lump sum is a legislative, not a judicial, task, so lawmakers must rewrite the program to continue aid.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice White dissented. Three Justices tied this result to a companion decision striking similar aid provisions.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?