c. 1997 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ Accepting a case that could have significant implications for church-state relations, the U.S. Supreme Court Friday (Jan. 17) agreed to reconsider its 1985 decision that prohibited public school teachers from conducting remedial classes at religious schools.

The justices agreed to hear oral arguments in April in a case that re-examines whether it is permissible under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause for federally funded teachers to teach remedial classes at religious schools.

In the 1985 Aguilar vs. Felton case, the justices ruled that such remedial classes were unconstitutional.”The symbolic union of church and state inherent in the provision of secular, state-provided instruction in the religious school buildings threatens to convey a message of state support for religion to students and the general public,”the Court said in a 5-4 vote.

Since that decision, teachers, under a federal remedial education program, have been offering assistance to parochial students in vans parked near religious schools or in other off-site facilities.

The Clinton administration was among those urging the Court to reconsider the policy. In a friend-of-the court brief, Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger said”hundreds of millions of dollars”that could have been spent on children’s education were instead used for”administrative costs made necessary only because of the need to comply”with the Aguilar decision.

The Rev. Thomas McDade, secretary for education at the U.S. Catholic Conference, said Roman Catholics are”delighted”that the Supreme Court will reconsider the issue.”We feel that since the original case, many, many students in non-public religiously affiliated schools have suffered,”McDade said.”There was no practicality whatsoever in the 1985 decision. It only hurt children and put an excessive burden on the strained resources of the U.S. government,”he added.

Greg Baylor, assistant director of the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom, was also pleased that the Court again will take up the issue.”Aguilar was one of the worst church-state cases that’s been decided, and it’s high time that it was overruled,”Baylor said.

However, groups that support the Aguilar decision were concerned.”What people forget is that it’s not the obligation of the taxpayers to subsidize religious schools,”said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.”If religious schools choose not to have these (remedial) programs, then they shouldn’t pick the pockets of taxpayers to provide them,”Lynn said.

Legal analysts on both sides said the case coming before the court could have implications far beyond the issue of remedial education.”This might serve as an opportunity to rewrite the law on church-state,”said Marc Stern, legal counsel for the American Jewish Congress.

In recent years, there has been vigorous debate within the legal community over what criteria should be used to determine whether a government action unconstitutionally supports or”establishes”religion. The Court has been deeply divided over the issue.

Given the current configuration of justices, Baylor said he does not expect the Court to take any”dramatic new steps”in the church-state arena.”However, every time the Court takes up an Establishment Clause case, it does have the opportunity to bring some clarity in the law,”Baylor said.

Yet, legal experts do not rule out the possibility that the justices could use this case to hand down significant new guidelines for the relationship between religion and government.”It’s really up for grabs,”Stern said.

MJP END LAWTON