343 U.S. 306 (1952)
New York City operates a released time program permitting public schools to release students during the school day upon written parental request so they can attend religious instruction or devotional exercises at religious centers off school premises.1 Students who remain at school stay in their classrooms while the released students are away. Religious organizations submit weekly attendance reports to the schools listing any released children who did not report for instruction.2 This program uses no public school classrooms for religious teaching and involves no expenditure of public funds, with all costs including application forms paid by the religious groups.3
Appellants, New York City taxpayers and residents whose children attend public schools, challenged the constitutionality of the released time program in court.4 The New York Court of Appeals sustained the program. The matter came before the Supreme Court on appeal.5
The record contains no evidence of coercion by school authorities to compel student participation in religious classes.6 School officials act neutrally by releasing students only at parental request and by using attendance reports solely to confirm students are not truant.7
Whether New York City's released time program prohibits the free exercise of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment?8
The First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.9
No. Students are released only upon written parental request.10 School authorities remain neutral and do no more than release those students whose parents so request.11 Students who are not released stay in their classrooms.12 No religious exercise or instruction is brought into the public school setting.13 The record contains no evidence of coercion by school officials to compel participation in religious classes.14 The program leaves each student free to decide whether to participate according to personal desires.15
New York City's released time program does not prohibit the free exercise of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.16
Whether the released time program makes a law respecting an establishment of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment?17
The First Amendment prohibits the states from making any law respecting an establishment of religion.18 The amendment does not require complete and unequivocal separation in every respect.19 It permits government to accommodate religious needs without financing religious groups or coercing participation.20
No. New York City operates a released time program. The program permits public schools to release students during the school day upon written parental request. Students attend religious instruction or devotional exercises at religious centers off school premises. Students who remain at school stay in their classrooms while the released students are away. Religious organizations submit weekly attendance reports to the schools. This program uses no public school classrooms for religious teaching and involves no expenditure of public funds.
The program therefore does no more than accommodate public school schedules to outside religious instruction.21 Government may adjust schedules to sectarian needs without establishing religion, provided it remains neutral, refrains from financing religious groups, and avoids coercion.22 The facts show precisely this form of neutral accommodation rather than any blending of secular and sectarian education or use of public power to promote religious observance.23
The released time program does not make a law respecting an establishment of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.24
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Black dissented on the ground that there is no significant difference between the New York program and the Illinois system invalidated in McCollum.25 In both programs the school authorities release children on condition that they attend religious classes, obtain reports on attendance, and hold nonparticipating children in school until the religious hour ends.26 Black maintained that the state manipulates its compulsory education laws to help religious sects obtain pupils, thereby combining church and state rather than keeping them separate.27
He reaffirmed the principle that a state can no more aid all religions than it can aid one.28
Justice Jackson dissented on the ground that the program rests on the state's power of coercion.29 The state first compels each student to yield a large part of time for public secular education and then releases some of that time on condition that it be devoted to sectarian religious purposes.30 Jackson observed that the truant officer enforces attendance at the church school by returning nonattending students to the public schoolroom, creating governmental constraint in support of religion that is unconstitutional whether applied directly or indirectly.31
Whether the New York released time program is materially distinguishable from the released time program invalidated in McCollum v. Board of Education?32
Yes. The New York released time program is materially distinguishable from the McCollum program because students are released to attend religious centers off school premises rather than having classrooms turned over to religious instructors.35 No public school classrooms are used for religious teaching and no public funds are expended.36 The schools do no more than accommodate their schedules to a program of outside religious instruction without integrating religious teaching into the school day or using the compulsory machinery of the public schools to channel students into sectarian classes.37
The New York released time program is materially distinguishable from the released time program invalidated in McCollum v. Board of Education.38
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Frankfurter dissented, agreeing with Justice Jackson that the school system does not close its doors or suspend operations for everyone.39 Instead, it keeps nonparticipating students inside the school while releasing others for religious instruction, so the school remains very much in operation.40 Frankfurter noted that the courts below denied appellants any opportunity to prove the coercion alleged to be inherent in the system.41
He concluded that the result reached disregards the principles unanimously accepted in McCollum.42