Court: Supreme Court of the United States; April 28, 1952; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
New York City's public school program allows students to leave school during the day for religious instruction, contingent upon written parental consent. Those not participating remain in class, and churches report on students who do not attend religious sessions. The program is funded entirely by religious organizations, distinguishing it from the McCollum v. Board of Education case, where religious instruction occurred in school classrooms, violating the First Amendment as applied to states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Appellants, New York City taxpayers with children in public schools, argue that the program effectively promotes religious instruction, claiming that the school's influence supports religious activities and that teachers monitor released students. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the law against these claims.
The court focused on the constitutional issue of whether the program violates the First Amendment by either prohibiting the free exercise of religion or establishing a religion. It concluded that no coercion exists, as participation in religious instruction is voluntary, with no evidence of pressure from school authorities. The court dismissed concerns about coercion or establishment of religion, stating that the present arrangement maintains neutrality and allows students to choose their religious practices independently.
New York's 'released time' program does not violate the First Amendment's prohibition against establishing religion. The First Amendment mandates a separation of Church and State, but it does not require complete isolation. While the separation is fundamental, it allows for certain interactions between government and religious institutions without constituting an establishment of religion. The text illustrates that if the separation were taken to extremes, it would undermine many traditional practices and laws that acknowledge a deity, such as legislative prayers or Thanksgiving proclamations. The law, as it stands, facilitates students' religious observances—like attending mass or observing Yom Kippur—by allowing teachers to grant permissions with parental consent. This cooperation does not alter the essence of the act, as it respects the religious nature of the populace. The government’s role in accommodating religious needs aligns with longstanding traditions, fostering a diverse religious landscape without favoring any specific group. To assert otherwise would imply a constitutional mandate for government indifference towards religious communities.
Government must maintain neutrality regarding religious beliefs, avoiding favoritism towards non-religious individuals or any religious group. It is prohibited from financing religious organizations, providing religious instruction, or compulsion in religious observance. Nevertheless, the government is not required to oppose religion or prevent the expansion of its influence. It can accommodate religious activities by allowing students to leave school for religious instruction, provided it does not promote any specific sect or make attendance compulsory.
The New York City released time program allows students to be absent for religious observance and education, with specific regulations: students must have parental consent, register for religious education, and report attendance. The program limits religious instruction to one hour per week without any announcements in public schools regarding it, placing responsibility on religious organizations and parents for attendance. The legal framework is established under the New York Education Law and the First Amendment, emphasizing the separation of Church and State without necessitating hostility towards religion. The case follows precedents set in McCollum v. Board of Education, distinguishing between accommodating religious instruction and promoting it within public schools.
Jurisdiction issues are not present in this case, as the appellants are parents of children currently enrolled in schools with a released time program, distinguishing them from the appellants in Doremus v. Board of Education. The New York Court of Appeals found that there was no evidence of coercion related to attendance at religious schools, as the appellants failed to substantiate their claims according to state procedural requirements. The court characterized their allegation of pressure on parents and children as conclusory and not implicating school authorities in coercive practices. Consequently, the appellants cannot assert maladministration in this proceeding due to the independent state ground for decision. Additionally, while three justices agreed that a 'released time' program similar to that in McCollum was unconstitutional, they acknowledged that not all released time programs are equivalent, and judicial scrutiny is warranted only when specific challenges to a program's execution arise.
