Mitchell v. Helms

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Lee Boothby (Argued the cause for the respondents Mary L. Helms, et al)
Michael W. McConnell (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Barbara D. Underwood (Argued the cause for the respondent United States in support of the petitioners)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
98-1648
Petitioner: 
Mitchell
Respondent: 
Helms
Opinion: 
530 U.S. 793 (2000)
Categories: 
first amendment, establishment of religion, education

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Mitchell v. Helms , 530 U.S. 793 (2000)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_1648)
Facts of the Case: 

Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 provides for the allocation of funds for educational materials and equipment, including library materials and computer software and hardware, to public and private elementary and secondary schools to implement "secular, neutral, and nonideological" programs. In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, about 30% of Chapter 2 funds are allocated for private schools, most of which are Catholic or otherwise religiously affiliated. Mary Helms and other public school parents file suit alleging that Chapter 2, as applied in Jefferson Parish, violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The District Court initially agreed, finding that Chapter 2 had the primary effect of advancing religion because the materials and equipment loaned to the Catholic schools were direct aid and that the schools were pervasively sectarian. However, after the presiding judge who made the initial ruling retired, the case was reviewed by a new judge, who reversed that decision. Thereafter, based on different precedent, the court upheld Chapter 2. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held Chapter 2 unconstitutional.

Question: 

Does Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion: 

No. In a 6-3 plurality decision delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that that Chapter 2, as applied in Jefferson Parish, is not a law respecting an establishment of religion simply because many of the private schools receiving Chapter 2 aid in the parish are religiously affiliated. Turning to neutrality to distinguish between indoctrination attributable to the State and that which is not, Justice Thomas wrote for the Court, "[i]f the religious, irreligious, and areligious are all alike eligible for governmental aid, no one would conclude that any indoctrination that any particular recipient conducts has been done at the behest of the government."

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Mitchell, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the minority, joined Souter's dissent
Stevens
Wrote a special concurrence
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote a dissent
Souter
Wrote the judgment of the Court
Thomas
Voted with the minority, joined Souter's dissent
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority, joined O'Connor's concurrence
Breyer

Judgment of the Court by Justice Clarence Thomas