Everson And Brown Vs Board Of Education: Fighting For Desegregated Schools

In 1947 a former ban was repealed which made a new, New Jersey law. This new law authorized reimbursement by local school boards for the costs of transportation to and from all schools. Most of the schools that were involved in this were parochial cathloic schools. If you didn't know, bussing students to and from school is paid taxes. So in 1947 a taxpayer, Arch R. Everson, in Ewing Township filed a lawsuit saying that the indirect help to religion through reimbursement for attending a catholic school violated the New Jersey State Constitution and the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment in the United States constitution. His lawsuit failed in the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, which is the state's highest court, he appealed to the United States Supreme Court solely on federal constitutional grounds.

On February 10,1947 a ruling was decided. The associate justice members were Hugo Black, Stanley F. Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley B. Rutledge, Harold H. Burton and the Chief Justice was Fred. M Vinson. These court came to the conclusion at a 5-4 ratio, they ruled that the law did not violate the constitution. They stated that nothing was violated because they offered the reimbursement to all students and of any/no religion and the payments were being made to a parent of any/no religion. No student was being denied this coverage. It also did not violate the Establishment cause in the first amendment because it did nothing to promote parochial schools, it only provided students of public and parochial schools means of equal and affordable transportation to and from school.

The majority opinion was led by Hugo L black and was joined by Vinson, Reed, Douglass and Murphey. He states that the establishment clause was intended to create a wall between church and state which stops the government from passing laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or favor one religion over another and this also applies to state governments. He said that the law did not pay any money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was set in place to help parents of all religions get their children to school. And he argued that distributing public funds to help pay for bussing children to school does not breach the wall between church and state. He concludes with saying the First amendment requires the state be neurtal when dealing with affairs of religious and non religious people. Justice Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion where he was joined by Frankfurter, and after that Rutledge wrote another dissenting opinion and was joined by Jackson, Frankfurter and Burton. They argued that the taxes are being used to fund and encourage religious ways. They argue that reimbursing parents for sending their children to parocihial schools is encouraging and aiding them in teaching religion and training/studying in religion teachings.