Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Media Items
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Robert H. Chanin (Argued the cause for the respondents Simmons-Harris, et al)
David J. Young (Argued the cause for the private petitioners)
Marvin E. Frankel (Argued the cause for the respondents Gatton, et al)
Judith L. French (Columbus, Ohio, argued the cause for the State petitioners)
Theodore B. Olson (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
00-1751
Petitioner: 
Zelman
Respondent: 
Simmons-Harris
Consolidation: 
No. 00-1777
No. 00-1779
Opinion: 
536 U.S. 639 (2002)
Categories: 
first amendment, establishment of religion, education
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris , 536 U.S. 639 (2002)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1751)
Facts of the Case: 

Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program provides tuition aid in the form of vouchers for certain students in the Cleveland City School District to attend participating public or private schools of their parent's choosing. Both religious and nonreligious schools in the district may participate. Tuition aid is distributed to parents according to financial need, and where the aid is spent depends solely upon where parents choose to enroll their children. In the 1999-2000 school year 82 percent of the participating private schools had a religious affiliation and 96 percent of the students participating in the scholarship program were enrolled in religiously affiliated schools. Sixty percent of the students were from families at or below the poverty line. A group of Ohio taxpayers sought to enjoin the program on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause. The District Court granted them summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question: 

Does Ohio's school voucher program violate the Establishment Clause?

Conclusion: 

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the program does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court reasoned that, because Ohio's program is part of Ohio's general undertaking to provide educational opportunities to children, government aid reaches religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of numerous individual recipients and the incidental advancement of a religious mission, or any perceived endorsement, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the "Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice."

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Zelman, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

Sort by Ideology

Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent, joined Souter's dissent, joined Breyer's dissent
Stevens
Wrote a regular concurrence
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote a dissent, joined Breyer's dissent
Souter
Wrote a regular concurrence
Thomas
Voted with the minority, joined Souter's dissent
Ginsburg
Wrote a dissent, joined Souter's dissent
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice William H. Rehnquist

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court