![]() The proposed payment reflects only the schools' expenses incurred in expectation of reimbursement. At the same time, however, supervision already conducted by Pennsylvania officials insures that the proposed reimbursement will not be used for sectarian purposes. (c) The contested reimbursement will not contravene the constitutional principle of Lemon I of avoiding the ongoing entanglement of church and state, since only a final, ministerial post-audit is involved, and no further detailed state surveillance of the schools is required. (b) A trial court has wide latitude in shaping an equitable decree and reaching an accommodation between public and private needs. (a) An unconstitutional statute is not absolutely void, but is a practical reality upon which people rely. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Pennsylvania to reimburse the schools for services rendered and costs incurred in reliance on the statutory scheme prior to its invalidation in Lemon I. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in an opinion joined by MR. Appellants challenge the scope of this decree. 602 ( Lemon I) of Pennsylvania's statutory program to reimburse nonpublic sectarian schools (hereafter school) for secular educational services, the District Court, on remand, enjoined any payments under the program for services rendered after Lemon I, but permitted Pennsylvania to reimburse the schools for service performed prior to that decision. ![]() Following this Court's invalidation in Lemon v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |