In the test set forth in , the Court established three prongs that must be met: the law must have a secular purpose; its principal effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and it must not excessively entangle government in religion.

Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971

Explanation:

In the test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Court established three prongs that must be met: the law must have a secular purpose; its principal effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and it must not excessively entangle government in religion.

The case involving Lemon v Kurtzman was a question of if the First Amendment to the constitution which states that the State should be separated from religion has been violated by the State of Pennsylvania in that the government of the state provided funding for non-secular, non-public education. The funding was found to be in violation of the First Amendment provision that rules that the Church should be separate from state. The judge ruled that such statute providing for the funding of non-secular, non-public education by the Pennsylvania state must pass a three-pronged test in order to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and it must not foster “excessive government entanglement with religion.