Citation: Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Topic: Establishment Clause being applied to Bill of Rights

Relief Sought: Before this common law was passed in the court, the federal government could make no law or pass no law that could support certain religious establishment or as such. Whereas,  the state government kept on contributing to a certain religious practice or community, and benefitted them in some or the other way.

Issue: It was challenged that validity of transportation fare under Federal Constitution also, resolution which they authorized a reimbursement for the parents so as to transport children while attending sectarian schools.

Facts: The Supreme Court controlled and ensured a New Jersey rule distributing resident resources for transport children to exacting schools — considering the way that it didn’t break the “wall of separation” among house of prayer as well as the state. Apart from that it was held that the said establishment aspect of the First Amendment actually applied to the state and also the relating governments in the similar manner with specific regards to administration (Justia, 2020).

Citation: Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

Topic: Building the Lemon Test

Relief Sought: The statutes were considered unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, whose cumulative impact was on the entire relationship of government and religion.

Issue: Lemon v. Kurtzman, the case that is significant for specifically building up “Lemon Test,” which is a three-pronged test designed for deciding if a resolution clears the investigation under denial of First Amendment laws “regarding a foundation of religion.”

Facts: Relating to abovementioned case, the issues here were two separate state laws. One of these was the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act of 1969; while another one was the Pennsylvania Non-Public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968. These particular two laws allowed the state government so as to enhance pay rates of the educators of subjects that are considered mainstream in schools that are strict (Justia, 2020).

Citation: Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist,413 U.S. 756 (1973)

Topic: Establishment Clause Adjudication

Relief Sought: Regarding tax relief to parents failing to qualify for tuition reimbursement

Issue: In Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973), the Supreme Court defamed an undertaking by New York state to give money grants to parochial schools for upkeep and fix of school workplaces. The Court moreover undermined two distinct activities that gave instructive cost reimbursements and appraisal thoughts to watchmen of adolescents going to such schools.

Facts: An administration region court had struck down two of the three ventures — keeping up only the evaluation discovering program — yet the Supreme Court concluded that all of the three activities dismissed the establishment explanation by impermissibly driving religion (Justia, 2020).

Citation: Sloan v. Lemon, 413 U.S. 825 (1973)

Topic: Repaying the Guardians for educational cost

Relief Sought: Tution Tax Relief

Facts: In the well -known case of Sloan v. Lemon, 413 U.S. 825 (1973), the Supreme Court struck down a recognised state law which specifically repaid the guardians for educational cost to the schools considered parochial (Vile, 2020).

Citation: Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 (1975)

Topic: Loaning facilities to the guardians

Relief Sought: Clash between the textbook loan provisions of Act 195 and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Issue: Lawfulness of the reading material and instructional materials credit programs and the helper administrations program, yet refuted the instructional gear advance program to the degree that it authorized the advance of hardware “which, from its inclination, can be occupied to strict purposes”

Facts: The Supreme Court choice in Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 (1975) concerns a foundation statement challenge to Pennsylvania rules that allowed its government funded schools to loan assets and administrations to both non -public school understudies and the scholastic establishments that they join in (counting strict ones) (Justia, 2020).

Citation: Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983)

Topic: Educational Cost

Relief Sought: Infringement of First Amendment

Issue:  Concern here is the constitutionality of a state tax deduction granted to taxpaying parents for school-related expenses.

Facts: Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983), is actually the more unmistakable cases where the Supreme Court  particularly maintained the legitimacy regarding a law permitting charge findings for educational cost and other school costs excessively profiting guardians whose kids go to the schools which are parochial. It was found by the Court that, the law was actually not infringing upon the basic condition of the First Amendment (Justia, 2020).

References

 Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/756/

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/1/

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/602/#:~:text=Held%3A%20Both%20statutes%20are%20unconstitutional,403%20U.%20S.%20611%2D625.

Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 (1975) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/349/

Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/463/388/