Court Opinion

ID: 9426940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:19:18.475088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:03.944584
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Brennan,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join Parts I, VII, and VIII of the Court’s opinion, and the reversal of the District Court’s judgment insofar as that judgment upheld the constitutionality of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 3317.06 (B), (C), and (L) (Supp. 1976).
I dissent however from Parts II, III, and IV (plurality opinion) and Parts V and VI of the Court’s opinion and the affirm-*256anee of the District Court’s judgment insofar as it sustained the constitutionality of §§ 3317.06 (A), (D), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), and (K). The Court holds that Ohio has managed in these respects to fashion a statute that avoids an effect or entanglement condemned' by the Establishment Clause. But “ [t] he [First] Amendment nullifies sophisticated as well as simpleminded . . .” attempts to avoid its prohibitions, Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268, 276 (1939), and, in any event, ingenuity in draftsmanship cannot obscure the fact that this subsidy to sectarian schools amounts to $88,800,000 (less now the sums appropriated to finance §§ 3317.06 (B) and (C) which today are invalidated) just for the initial biennium. The Court nowhere evaluates this factor in determining the compatibility of the statute with the Establishment Clause, as that Clause requires, Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, 16 (1947). Its evaluation, even after deduction of the amount appropriated to finance §§ 3317.06 (B) and (C), compels in my view the conclusion that a divisive political potential of unusual magnitude inheres in the Ohio program. This suffices without more to require the conclusion that the Ohio statute in its entirety offends the First Amendment’s prohibition against laws “respecting- an establishment of religion.” Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U. S. 349, 373-385 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring); Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 640-642 (1971) (Douglas, J., concurring); Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at 16.