ABSTRACT
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602, is a case that grew in stature through the years, far more than its facts would have predicted. The US Supreme Court actually combined a second case in its Lemon decision, Earley v. DiCenso. The Lemon case involved a challenge of a Pennsylvania law that authorized the state superintendent of schools to purchase secular services and materials for use within nonpublic schools. Although the Lemon test has been used consistently since 1971, the results have been anything but consistent. Numerous attempts have been made to supplement or supplant the Lemon test through the years. The DiCenso case, from Rhode Island, was about a salary supplement program. Teachers of secular subjects in private elementary schools could get supplements of up to 15 percent of their salaries if they agreed in writing not to teach religious subjects, provided their supplemented salaries did not exceed those of public school teachers.
