Endorsement Test: Zelman V. Simmons-Harriss

Justice O’Connor created a third test, the Endorsement test, in Lynch v. Donnelly that was originally meant to clarify the Lemon test, however it has been turned into its own test in recent years. In her concurrence, Justice O’Connor stated, “The proper inquiry under the purpose prong of Lemon, I submit, is whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion”. When treated as its own test, the Endorsement test is concerned with the appearance of legislation and issues. To explores the problem with the Endorsement test, we will explore Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris explores the issue of Ohio’s Pilot Project Scholarship Program. Cleveland’s public schools were "under federal court …show more content…
The Free Exercise clause states “Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of religion, or prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof”. Scholars have argued that the effect prong of the Lemon test, which states that legislation cannot advance or inhibit a religion, contradicts the Free Exercise clause because the government, at times, must protection religion. The court addressed this conundrum in Everson v. Board of Education. In this case, the funding of transportation of children who attend religious schools is challenged as a violation of the Establishment clause. The court ruled that it is not a violation of the Establishment clause. In his opinion, Justice Black stated: “Measured by these standards, we cannot say that the First Amendment prohibits New Jersey from spending tax-raised funds to pay the bus fares of parochial school pupils as a part of a general program under which it pays the fares of pupils attending public and other schools” . Justice Black is stating that the children who attend these religious schools have just as much of a right to free transportation as students who go to public schools. In addition, Justice Black, in his opinion, brings up a unique comment about the police. This comment ties in with the conundrum that some scholars have posed about the relationship between the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause. Justice Black points out that these two clauses work in collaboration with each other. They are much like the checks and balances that the Constitution laid out for the legislative system. If the government gives too much protection to one religion, it will be a violation of the Establishment clause, however, if they do not provide enough protection to a religion it will