This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Pennsylvania provides financial support to nonpublic elementary and secondary schools by way of reimbursement for the cost of teachers' salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials in specified secular subjects. Rhode Island has adopted a statute under which the State pays directly to teachers in nonpublic elementary schools a supplement of 15% of their annual salary. Appellees are citizens and taxpayers of Rhode Island, and they brought this suit to have the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act declared unconstitutional. The District Court concluded that the Act violated the Establishment Clause, holding that it fostered 'excessive entanglement' between government and religion. In addition, two judges thought that the Act had the impermissible effect of giving 'significant aid to a religious enterprise.' In Pennsylvania reimbursement is limited to courses 'presented in the curricula of the public schools.' It is further limited 'solely' to courses in the following 'secular' subjects: mathematics, modern foreign languages, physical science, and physical education. Textbooks and instructional materials included in the program must be approved by the state Superintendent of Public Instruction. Finally, the statute prohibits reimbursement for any course that contains 'any subject matter expressing religious teaching, or the morals or forms of worship of any sect.' Appellants brought this action in the District Court to challenge the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania statute. The court granted appellees' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. It held that the Act violated neither the Establishment nor the Free Exercise Clause.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.