Opinion ID: 3031949
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The “Primary Effect” Prong of the Lemon Test

Text: The plaintiffs mistakenly argue that the district court erred by inventing a “primary effect” standard under the Establishment Clause. The district court did not invent the “primary effect” language. The Supreme Court used that language in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612 (1971). As we have explained, the “second prong of Lemon bars governmental action that has the ‘principal or primary effect’ of advancing or disapproving of religion.” Vasquez v. Los Angeles County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1256 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612).