EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S.

1 (1947)
Appeal from the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey.
Justice Black
Doctrine: The establishment Clause does not prevent a State from extending the benefits of state laws to all
citizens without regard for their religious affiliation and does not prohibit tax raised funds to form part of a
general program under which students from both public and private parochial schools may benefit
Facts:

A New Jersey statute authorizes its local school districts to make rules and contracts for the transportation of
children to and from schools. 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.
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
State court held that the legislature was without power to authorize such payment under the State constitution. 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.

ISSUES and JUDGMENTS

1. Whether or not the New Jersey statute providing free bus fares for students from any type of school
violates the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process Clause)? NO
Contention: The statute authorizes the State to take by taxation the private property of some and bestow it upon
others, to be used for their own private purposes.

This argument, if valid, would apply equally to prohibit state payment for the transportation of children to any
non- public school, whether operated by a church, or any other nongovernment individual or group. But, the New
Jersey legislature has decided that a public purpose will be served by using tax-raised funds to pay the bus fares of
all school children, including those who attend parochial schools.
The fact that a state law, passed to satisfy a public need, coincides with the personal desires of the individuals
most directly affected is certainly an inadequate reason for us to say that a legislature has erroneously appraised
the public need.

2. Whether or not such statute is contrary to the prohibition embodied in the First Amendment (Nonestablishment clause)? NO
Contention: The statute and the resolution forced inhabitants to pay taxes to help support and maintain schools which
are dedicated to, and which regularly teach, the Catholic Faith. This is alleged to be a use of State power to support
church schools. The New Jersey statute is challenged as a 'law respecting an establishment of religion.'
History: A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which
compelled them to support and attend government favored churches. Dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes to
support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and
consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters. It reached its dramatic climax in
Virginia in 1785-86 when the Virginia legislative body was about to renew Virginia's tax levy for the support of the
established church Madison and Jefferson led the fight against this tax
Madison : a true religion did not need the support of law; that no person, either believer or non-believer, should be taxed to
support a religious institution of any kind

Jefferson: to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is
sinful and tyrannical

Non-establishment clause: State 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.'
The Fourteenth Amendment did not strip the states of their power to meet problems previously left for individual
solution
There was difficulty in drawing the line between tax legislation which provides funds for the welfare of the
general public and that which is designed to support institutions which teach religion.
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal
Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one
religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or
small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever
from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.
In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of
separation between Church and State.'
The amendment commands that New Jersey cannot hamper its citizens in the free exercise of their own religion.
Consequently, it cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists,
Non-believers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from
receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation.
The First Amendment requires the state to be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap
religions, than it is to favor them

The decision of the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, 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 is
AFFIRMED
WIKEPEDIA
Summary: After repealing a former ban, a New Jersey law authorized payment by local school boards of the costs of
transportation to and from schools - including private schools. Of the private schools that benefited from this policy, 96%
were parochial Catholic schools. Arch R. Everson, a taxpayer in Ewing Township, filed a lawsuit alleging that this indirect
aid to religion through the mechanism of reimbursing parents and students for costs incurred as a result of attending
religious schools violated both the New Jersey state constitution and the First Amendment. After a loss in the New Jersey
Court of Errors and Appeals, then the state's highest court, Everson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on purely federal
constitutional grounds. The US SC affirmed the appealed decision (5-4 decision).