Agostini v. Felton
United States Supreme Court
521 U.S. 203, 117 S. Ct. 1997, 138 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1997)

- Written by Richard Lavigne, JD
Facts
In 1978, Felton and a group of five other federal taxpayers filed suit seeking an injunction to prohibit the school board for the City of New York from using public funds to employ public-school teachers to provide remedial education services in sectarian schools pursuant to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The federal district court denied the injunction, but the court of appeals reversed, and the United States Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision on the ground that the school board’s program represented an excessive entanglement of church and state in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. On remand, the district court entered a permanent injunction against the use of public employees to provide remedial education services in sectarian schools. In 1995, the school board and a group of parents of religious school students entitled to receive Title I educational services filed motions with the district court seeking relief from the permanent injunction. The district court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. Agostini and comovants petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
Dissent (Souter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.