Constitutional Rights: Everson v. Board Of Education

This assignment analyzes the Everson v. Board of Education case and its impact on Constitutional Rights. It discusses the issues of separation of powers between state and religion, the facts of the case, the ruling, and the implications for religious institutions.

Constitutional Rights: Everson v. Board Of Education
1
Constitutional Rights: Everson v. Board Of Education
Name
University

Constitutional Rights: Everson v. Board Of Education
2
Introduction
The Everson v. Board of Education case in 1947 addressed the issues of separation of
powers between the state and religion. The US Constitution in the Bill of Rights provides for
freedom of religion which is found in the First Amendment. In the first ten amendments of the
constitution the rights and freedom of religion is protected. The congress is prohibited from
making legislations or laws that prohibits free expression of religion. This case was filed by Arch
R. Everson from Ewing Township who argued that paying parents and students who attended
Christian schools was in breach of the First Amendment and the laws of New Jersey as enshrined
in the constitution. This assignment will analyze the Everson v. Board of Education case and the
impact it has had in the development Constitutional Rights.
Facts of the Case
The facts of this case are based on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution that
protects individuals from state governments’ and federal government excesses of power (Kauper,
2013). The amendment requires before action is taken by the state due diligence has to be
followed and a fair judicial process carried out (Dorf, p. 24, 2014). This can be explained in the
Cantwell v. Connecticut case of 1940 when the Supreme Court found it necessary for the
freedom of religion to be included in the fundamental human rights.
Issue
The issue in the case of Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 in which Everson
challenged the state for providing transport funding to parochial schools. The challenge on the
First Amendment Clause by Everson was found by the High Court not to have violated the First

Constitutional Rights: Everson v. Board Of Education
3
Amendment Establishment Clause (Alexey, 2010). The court found that the funding of
transportation was universal and did not discriminate any section of the society. The court held
the program was being provided for both the public and private schools regardless of religious
affiliations.
The ruling-appeal
Everson appealed against Ewing Township school board and the Supreme Court upheld
the decision of the High Court. This prompted Everson to lodge another appeal at the Supreme
Court of the United States (Harvey, 2011). The Supreme Court granted Everson a review of the
case.
The Supreme Court of the US affirmed the decision of the lower courts. The judges
applied the principle of the rule of law. The reasoning was derived from the fact that by the court
refusing the state from recognizing institutions based on religious grounds was being
discriminatory. This would have been acting against the Establishment Clause of Bill of Rights.
Rule
Justice Hugo Black delivered the verdict of the court on February 10th 1947. In the five to
four decision of the court, the judges’ relied upon Memorial and Remonstrance v Religious
Assessments case. The interpretation of the court was that the bill was constitutional and held all
the requirements of the Established Clause as enshrined in the constitution. Due diligence was
followed by the court which applied the reasoning that the disbursement of the funds to schools
did not discriminate upon any institution or individual (Kauper, 2013). The court found that the
constitution did not prevent the state from giving money to schools for transport.

Constitutional Rights: Everson v. Board Of Education
4
The court ruled it was important for the constitution not to provide preferential treatment
to any religion. This equally constituted not discriminating against any religious institutions or
those that did not practice any religion (Waldron, 2017). This argument was based upon the Free
Exercise Clause.
Decision
Judge Rutledge held the opinion that the main reason for the enactment of the First
Amendment was to provide a clear distinction between the state and religion. The notion of Tax
Payers money being used to provide transport to students from religious based schools was
viewed as the state unfairly aiding private religious institutions (McCrudden, 2010). The same
opinion was also shared by Judge Jackson who he opined by funding parochial schools the
government was misusing tax payers’ money.
Personal opinion
This case provided the foundation for enacting the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment into the states laws. The establishment of due diligence was also upheld in ensuring
equal access of state funding to all schools. Discrimination against religious grounds was
dissented in all its forms (Morgenstern, 1991). The ruling impacted positively to the Christian
schools that were facing difficulties in financing their transport operations.
The ruling opened the door for many First Amendment cases being brought to court for
interpretation. The judicial system has enacted systems that deal with the clarification of clauses
that are not established in the constitution. These clauses are included in the free exercise article

Constitutional Rights: Everson v. Board Of Education
5
in the constitution. Through the ruling delivered by the Supreme Court majority, Justice Black
expounded the position of separation of power between the state and religion.

Constitutional Rights: Everson v. Board Of Education
6
References
Kauper, P. G. (2013). Everson v. Board of Education: A Product of the Judicial Will. Ariz. L.
Rev., 15, 307.
Alexy, R. (2010). A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press, USA.
Waldron, J. (2017). A right-based critique of constitutional rights. In Bills of Rights (pp. 3-36).
Routledge.
McCrudden, C. (2010). Common law of human rights?: Transnational judicial conversations on
constitutional rights. Oxford journal of legal studies, 20(4), 499-532
Morgenstein, L. G. (2011). Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens:
Three R's+ Religion= Mergens. Am. UL Rev., 41, 221.
Harvey, E. A. (2010). Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education: Squeeze the Lemon Test
out of Establishment Clause Jurisprudence. Geo. Mason L. Rev., 10, 299.