This paper presents a comparative legal analysis of two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases: Aguilar v. Felton (1985) and Agostini v. Felton (1997). Both cases center on whether federally funded Title I educational programs — which placed public school teachers inside parochial schools to serve disadvantaged children — violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The paper traces how the Court's 1985 ruling condemned such programs as an unconstitutional entanglement of church and state, and how a dramatically different 1997 majority reversed that holding, permitting on-premises instruction by public employees under appropriate safeguards. Together, the two cases illustrate the evolving judicial interpretation of the separation of church and state in the context of public education funding.
In the case of Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985), the appellants sought review of a judgment from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which held that a program operated by the appellants under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., violated the appellees' rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The appellees were taxpayers who challenged the distribution of federal funds used to pay the salaries of public employees who taught in parochial schools. Those funds were distributed under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provided financial assistance to meet the educational needs of children from low-income families. Appellants argued that the program was distinct from the parochial schools and that church and state were indeed separate, as required by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court held that, despite the efforts taken, the program remained constitutionally flawed due to an excessive entanglement of church and state in the administration of Title I benefits. The Court affirmed the circuit court's holding in favor of the appellees (Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402, 1985).
The Court affirmed that the program providing federal funds to public employees who taught in parochial schools was unconstitutional because it represented an excessive entanglement of church and state in the administration of educational benefits. This ruling established that excessive mixing of church and state in the education arena constitutes a clear violation of the Establishment Clause and is therefore unconstitutional (Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402, 1985).
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 authorized local institutions to receive funds to assist educationally deprived children from low-income families. The City of New York frequently used portions of its Title I funding to pay the salaries of employees who taught in parochial schools. Even though the Court acknowledged that New York City's efforts were well-intentioned, it determined that the funding practices violated the Constitution. Teachers in this program were directed to avoid involvement in religious materials and activities in their classrooms. This requirement, along with the monitoring performed by school administrators and field supervisors who reviewed classroom activities for religious content, posed significant constitutional problems. Involving city agents in extensive monitoring increased the potential for crossing religious lines and violated the intent of the Establishment Clause, which was designed to prevent the intrusion of church and state into each other's respective domain (the Oyez Project, Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402, 2009).
The fundamental issue underlying this case is the principle of separation of church and state established by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. "The Supreme Court's first, and most comprehensive, statement about the meaning of the establishment clause is found in Justice Black's majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 855 (1947)" (Allison, n.d.). Everson concerned a New Jersey statute that subsidized transportation for students attending private religious schools. While the Court upheld the statute, it rejected a narrow reading of the Establishment Clause in favor of a broadly separationist interpretation. From that case emerged the principle that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment means that:
Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither may pass laws that aid one religion or all religions, nor may either prefer one religion over another. Neither may force or influence a person to attend or to stay away from church. No person may be punished for holding religious beliefs or disbeliefs, or for attending or not attending church. No tax in any amount may be imposed to support religious activities or institutions. Neither a state nor the federal government may participate in the affairs of any religious organization or group. It is understood that this clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state (Allison, n.d.).
This wall of separation has been a hotly debated topic for many years. Determining exactly what these rulings meant and how they apply to each particular situation has proved consistently difficult. The Court's ruling in Aguilar v. Felton held that the Establishment Clause, as applied in that case, prohibited the use of government funds to send public teachers into parochial schools. Although the decision was decided by only a five-to-four majority, it set the controlling rule — at least until 1997.
"Demographics and monitoring practices raise constitutional concerns"
"Supreme Court overturns Aguilar and permits on-premises instruction"
"Doctrine evolves to allow neutral public aid in religious schools"
You’re 43% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.