The Lemon Test
“Universally, whenever the Supreme Court has been faced with a case regarding prayers in school, they have held that school prayer in a public school setting is not permissible.” (School Prayer : Lee v Weisman. Perf. Sandra Blanding). They have come to these decisions based on something called the Lemon Test. “The Court over the last four two decades or so have gradually developed certain criteria they have applied… from a case entitled Lemon v Kurtzman..." (School Prayer : Lee v Weisman. Perf. Sandra Blanding). "The Supreme Court, in 1971, decided a case called Lemon v Kurtzman and it announced in this case, a three-part test for determining when some government action has violated the establishment clause…” (School Prayer : Lee v Weisman. Perf. Charles Cooper). “Failing any part of this three-fold test seemed to be enough to hold the state laws unconstitutional.” (Cord). The test itself has been in use since its creation in 1971, "...but [the] criteria really came over a long period of time and through a lot of different cases... since the Lemon test… the Court has continued to refine those criteria.” (School Prayer : Lee v Weisman. Perf. Sandra Blanding).
“Universally, whenever the Supreme Court has been faced with a case regarding prayers in school, they have held that school prayer in a public school setting is not permissible.” (School Prayer : Lee v Weisman. Perf. Sandra Blanding). They have come to these decisions based on something called the Lemon Test. “The Court over the last four two decades or so have gradually developed certain criteria they have applied… from a case entitled Lemon v Kurtzman..." (School Prayer : Lee v Weisman. Perf. Sandra Blanding). "The Supreme Court, in 1971, decided a case called Lemon v Kurtzman and it announced in this case, a three-part test for determining when some government action has violated the establishment clause…” (School Prayer : Lee v Weisman. Perf. Charles Cooper). “Failing any part of this three-fold test seemed to be enough to hold the state laws unconstitutional.” (Cord). The test itself has been in use since its creation in 1971, "...but [the] criteria really came over a long period of time and through a lot of different cases... since the Lemon test… the Court has continued to refine those criteria.” (School Prayer : Lee v Weisman. Perf. Sandra Blanding).
“That test has been applied in a way, over the 20 years since its development, to come up with some fairly contradictory and frankly, difficult to reconcile results in a number of different areas of religious practice. It’s a test that a majority of the Supreme Court -- at least 6 members of the Supreme Court -- have criticized very harshly… So the test itself has been viewed by many, including members of the Supreme Court as inadequate to truly divining the correct line between the permissible and the impermissible in the Establishment Clause area.” (School Prayer : Lee v Weisman. Perf. Charles Cooper). “In 1976, in Roemer v Board of Public Works of Maryland, a plurality opinion, written by Justice Blackmun, concurred by Justice Burger and Justice Powell, found that a Maryland Statute which provided annual non-categorical grants to private colleges, among them religiously affiliated institutions, subject only to restrictions that the funds not be used for sectarian purposes passed the threefold Lemon I test and was not therefore in conflict with the Establishment Clause. Justice White’s concurring opinion, joined by Justice Rehnquist, clearly indicated that he would have joined the Blackmun plurality opinion, thus making it the opinion of the court, had it not been for the ‘superfluous tests’ of Lemon used by Blackmun.’” (Cord).
“The threefold test of Lemon poses unnecessary, and… superfluous tests for establishing ‘when state’s involvement with religion passes the peril point’ for First Amendment purposes." (Cord). "It is enough for me to say that the [State is] financing a separable secular function of overriding importance in order to sustain the legislation here challenged." (Lemon v Kurtzman). "As long as there is a secular legislative purpose and as long as the primary effect of the legislation is neither to advance nor inhibit religion, I see no reason – particularly in the sparse language of the Establishment Clause, -- to take the constitutional inquiry further.” (Cord).
-- Justice White on the Lemon Test during the 1976 Romer Case.