Court Opinion

ID: 9687962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:55:40.811859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:33.797864
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.
This is an action by the School District of Hartington, Nebraska, to compel the Nebraska State Board of Education, and the Nebraska Department of Education, to approve its application for a grant of federal funds to *2provide instructional activities and services to meet the special educational needs, of educationally deprived children. The application, dated September 8, 1969, was made pursuant to the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Because of a shortage of space in the buildings owned by the Hartington School District, the district entered into a lease with the Hartington Cedar Catholic High School for the use of one classroom full time and a second classroom half time. The lease provided that the classrooms would be used only for carrying on the project under the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; that the Hartington School District would have full control over .the classrooms and the educational program; and that no objects, pictures, or other articles having a religious meaning or connotation would be in the classrooms..
The defendants refused to approve the application because the project included the use of leased classrooms in the Hartington Cedar Catholic High School Building. This action followed.
The trial court found generally for the plaintiff and ordered the defendants to approve the application. The defendants appeal. The sole issue presented is whether the lease between the plaintiff and the Hartington Cedar Catholic High S'chool is in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Nebraska. The particular provisions involved are the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the prohibition against public aid to any sectarian or denominational school contained in Article VII, section 11, of the Constitution of Nebraska.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; * *
The Constitution of Nebraska provides: “Neither the State Legislature nor any county, city or other pub-*3lie corporation, shall ever make any appropriation from any public fund, or grant any public land in aid of any sectarian or denominational school or college, or any educational institution which is not exclusively owned and controlled by the state or a governmental subdivision thereof.” Art. VII, § 11, Constitution of Nebraska.
The right of a public .school district to use or lease all or a part of a church or other sectarian building for public school purposes has been upheld in a number of cases. As stated by the Supreme Court of Michigan in In re Proposal C, 384 Mich. 390, 185 N. W. 2d 9: “Premises occupied by lease or otherwise for public school purposes under the authority, control and operation of the public school system by public school personnel as a public school open to all eligible to attend a public school are public schools. This is true even though the lessor or grantor is a nonpublic school and even though such premises are contiguous or adjacent to a nonp.ublic school.” See; also, State ex rel. Conway v. District Board, 162 Wis. 482, 156 N. W. 477; Dorner v. School Dist., 137 Wis. 147, 118 N. W. 353; Millard v. Board of Education, 121 Ill. 297, 10 N. E. 669; Scripture v. Burns, 59 Iowa 70, 12 N. W. 760; Swadley v. Haynes (Tenn.), 41 S. W. 1066; Rawlings v. Butler (Ky.), 290 S. W. 2d 801, 60 A. L. R 2d 285; Crain v. Walker, 222 Ky. 828, 2 S. W. 2d 654; City of New Haven v. Town of Torrington, 132 Conn. 194, 43 A. 2d 455; State ex rel. Johnson v. Boyd, 217 Ind. 348, 28 N. E. 2d 256.
If the property used or leased is under the control of the public school authorities and the instruction offered is secular and nonsectarian, there is no constitutional violation. The lease in this case meets these requirements. We find no “excessive entanglement” between government and religion in the lease involved in this case. See Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U. S. 664, 90 S. Ct. 1409, 25 L. Ed. 2d 697.
The defendants concede that it is not ipso facto un*4lawful for a public school district to lease property from a church-affiliated organization or institution for public school purposes. They attempt to raise a broader issue and challenge the “general constitutionality of the total educational program here involved.” The defendants assert that it is unconstitutional for parochial school children to participate in an educational program under the federal act.
The federal act requires that educationally deprived children within the public school district who are enrolled in private schools be allowed to participate in the program. 20 U. S. C. A., § 241e (a) (2). Section 116.19 (b) of the federal regulations provides that the private school students’ participation in the program shall be on a. basis comparable to that of the children enrolled in the public schools. The defendants actually seek a declaration that the federal act itself is unconstitutional. See Barrera v. Wheeler, 441 F. 2d 795 (8th Cir.). Although that issue is not presented in this case, we believe it appropriate to make the following observations concerning the contention advanced by the defendants:
The Constitution of Nebraska specifically provides that no religious test or qualification shall be required of any student for admission to any public school. Art. VII, § 11, Constitution of Nebraska. It would seem that an attempt to prohibit a student enrolled in a parochial school from participating in a program conducted by the public schools, solely because the student was enrolled in a parochial school, would violate this provision of the Constitution of Nebraska.
The United States Supreme Court has, in the past, recognized a distinction between aid provided to parochial school students or their parents and aid provided to the school itself. In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, 67 S. Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711, 168 A. L. R. 1392, public transportation of nonpublic students, was held constitutional. In Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 88 S. Ct. 1923, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1060, the loan of school*5books for parochial school students was approved. In Earley v. DiCenso, 403 U. S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105, 29 L. Ed. 2d 745, and Robinson v. DiCenso, 403 U. S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105, 29 L. Ed. 2d 745, payment of a salary supplement to teachers of secular subjects in nonpublic schools was held invalid. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105, 29 L. Ed. 2d 745, reimbursement for teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects in nonpublic schools was held invalid. In Tilton v. Richardson, decided June 28, 1971, 403 U. S. 672, 91 S. Ct. 2091, 29 L. Ed. 2d 790, Chief Justice Burger stated: “Our cases from Everson to Allen have permitted church-related schools to receive government aid in the form of secular, neutral, or nonidieological services, facilities, or materials that are supplied to all students regardless of the affiliation of the school which they ..attend.” See, also, P.O.A.U. v. Essex, 28 Ohio St. 2d 79, 275 N. E. 2d 603.
The record shows that the classes which would be conducted by the Hartington School District in the leased classrooms would include both students enrolled in the public schools and students enrolled in nonpublic schools. It would seem that to deny a student the right to participate in a program offered by a public school district solely because that student is enrolled in a parochial school would violate that student’s right to a free exercise of religion and to equal protection of the law. In re Proposal C, supra..
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.