Religious Freedom Page: Roemer v. Maryland Public Works Board

Roemer v. Maryland Public Works Board

426 U.S. 736 (1976)

Facts of the Case:

A Maryland statute allowed the issuance of monetary grants to private colleges and universities that did not offer only theological degrees. The amount of money given was based on the number of students enrolled in the school who were not pursuing a theological degree. A suit was brought on behalf of taxpayers who claimed that the grants constituted an improper aid to religion.

Decision:

The Court permitted Maryland to give grants to non-public schools with the stipulation that the money only be spent on secular functions.

Majority Opinion: (Justice Blackmun)

The statute does not improperly advance religion because the money must be spent on secular education. The totality of the education at religious universities includes both religious and non-religious aspects. There are numerous secular activities upon which the money may properly be spent. Although the schools must submit annual reports to renew their funding, the relationship between the State and religion does not lead to excessive entanglement. “[C]ontacts between the Council and the colleges are not likely to be any more entangling than the inspections and audits incident to the normal process of the colleges' accreditations by the State.” These universities are capable of separating their religious and secular functions, so the State will not be required to become excessively entangled in order to monitor the expenditures.

Dissenting Opinion: (Justice Brennan:)

The statute is unconstitutional because it breaches the Establishment Clause by creating a broad connection between the government and the religious schools through the use of public funds. The funds go to religious schools with no set purpose, and the general nature of the subsidies establishes an improper relation between the government and the schools.

Significance:

This decision places much trust in the abilities of non-public universities to decide where the grants may be appropriately spent. By concentrating on the specific use of the money given by the State, the Court avoids the argument that the additional funds being given to finance secular education will allow the universities to focus more of their own funds on religious activities.