Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Md.

1976-06-21

Headline: Maryland’s annual college subsidy law upheld, allowing state grants to private and religiously affiliated colleges so long as funds are barred from sectarian uses and monitored by safeguards.

Holding: The Court affirmed that Maryland may lawfully give annual, noncategorical grants to private colleges, including religiously affiliated ones, provided the money is not used for sectarian purposes and procedures guard against entanglement.

Real World Impact:

Permits Maryland to give annual state grants to private colleges, including religiously affiliated ones.
Requires safeguards that bar using the money for religious worship or sectarian instruction.
Leaves improper-use disputes to administrative review and courts rather than automatic refunds.

Topics: state funding for private colleges, religious colleges and government aid, separation of church and state, higher education grants

Summary

Background

Four Maryland citizens and taxpayers sued Maryland state officials and four Roman Catholic colleges over a state law that created annual, noncategorical grants to private colleges. The law (enacted 1971, amended in 1972) makes most private Maryland colleges eligible if they are accredited, were established before July 1, 1970, offer associate or baccalaureate programs, and do not award only seminary or theological degrees. The formula ties payments per full-time student (excluding seminarians) to a share of the State’s per-student college appropriation. The 1972 amendment added a rule that no money “shall be utilized ... for sectarian purposes.” The program is run by the Board of Public Works assisted by the Maryland Council for Higher Education and requires applications, affidavits, annual spending reports, segregated accounts, and possible audits.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the grants violated the Establishment Clause (the Constitution’s rule separating church and state). The Court applied the Lemon three-part framework: it accepted that the law had a secular purpose, then examined whether the aid’s primary effect advanced religion or created excessive entanglement. The District Court had found the colleges were not so “pervasively sectarian” that secular uses could not be separated from religious ones, and that administrative safeguards and limited audits would prevent funding of sectarian activities. The Supreme Court agreed, likening the program to past cases that permitted neutral aid to colleges and thus affirmed the lower court judgment.

Real world impact

The ruling lets Maryland continue annual state payments to private colleges, including religiously affiliated ones, so long as funds are not spent on worship or religious instruction and the Council enforces the statutory safeguards. Disputes over particular uses remain subject to administrative review and court oversight; the Court did not require refunds of older payments.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White concurred only in the judgment, objecting to part of the test; Justices Brennan, Stewart, and Stevens dissented, arguing the grants risk advancing religion and would have enjoined payments and ordered refunds.