# Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Md. > Supreme Court of the United States · June 21, 1976 · 426 U.S. 736 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426475 ## Case - **Full name:** ROEMER Et Al. v. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF MARYLAND Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 21, 1976 - **Citations:** 426 U.S. 736; 96 S. Ct. 2337; 49 L. Ed. 2d 179; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 70 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Stewart - **Judges:** BlacemuN, Blackmun, Brennan, Burger, Stevens, Stewart, White - **Cited by:** 327 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Employment Security Administration v. Baltimore Lutheran High School Ass'n, 291 Md. 750 (1981). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426475 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - finding that annual aid payments to a religious university are constitutional because there is no impermissible effect when the institution is not "so permeated by religion" that secular cannot be separated from religious instruction - finding no excessive entanglement where the government's contacts with a religiously-affiliated college were "not likely to be any more entangling than the inspections and audits incident to the normal process of colleges' accreditations by the State" - holding there was no excessive entanglement where State conducts annual audits to ensure that categorical state grants to religious colleges are not used to teach religion - finding that state-funded grants to private colleges did not violate the Establishment Clause, in part because use of the grants was restricted to non-sectarian purposes ## Opinion text Mr. Justice Stewart, dissenting. In my view, the decisive differences between this case and Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672 , lie in the nature of the theology courses that are a compulsory part of the curriculum at each of the appellee institutions and the type of governmental assistance provided to these church-affiliated colleges. In Tilton the Court emphasized that the theology courses were taught as academic subjects. “Although all four schools require their students to take theology courses, the parties stipulated that these courses are taught according to the academic requirements of the subject matter and the teacher’s concept of professional standards. The parties also stipulated that the courses covered a range of human religious experiences and are not limited to courses about the Roman Catholic religion. The schools introduced evidence that they made no attempt to indoctrinate students or to proselytize. Indeed, some of the required theology courses at Albertus Magnus and Sacred Heart are taught by rabbis.” Id., at 686-687 . Here, by contrast, the District Court was unable to find that the compulsory religion courses were taught as an academic discipline. “[T]he hiring patterns for religion or theology departments are a special case and present a unique problem. All five defendants staff their religion or theology departments chiefly with clerics of the affiliated church. At two defendants, Western *774 Maryland and Mt. St. Mary’s, all members of the religion or theology faculty are clerics. The problem presented by the make-up of these departments is obvious. Recognition of the academic freedom of these instructors does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that courses in the religion or theology departments at the five defendants have no overtones of indoctrination. "The theology and religion courses of each de* fendant must be viewed in the light of that shared objective [of encouraging spiritual development of the students]. While most of the defendants do not offer majors in religion or theology, each maintains a vigorous religion or theology department. The primary concern of these departments, either admittedly or by the obvious thrust of the courses, is Christianity. As already noted, the departments are staffed almost entirely with clergy of the affiliated church. At each of the defendants, certain of these courses are required. “. . . [A] department staffed mainly by clerics of the affiliated church and geared toward a limited array of the possible theology or religion courses affords a congenial means of furthering the secondary objective of fostering religious experience.” 387 F. Supp. 1282, 1294-1296 (emphasis in original). In light of these findings, I cannot agree with the plurality’s assertion that there is “no constitutionally significant distinction” between the colleges in Tilton and those in the present case. Ante, at 759. The findings in Tilton clearly established that the federal building-construction grants benefited academic institutions that made no attempt to inculcate the religious beliefs of the affiliated church. In the present case, by contrast, *775 the compulsory theology courses may be “devoted to deepening religious experiences in the particular faith rather than to teaching theology as an academic discipline.” 387 F. Supp., at 1288 . In view of this salient characteristic of the appellee institutions and the non-categorical grants provided to them by the State of Maryland, I agree with the conclusion of the dissenting member of the three-judge court that the challenged Act “in these instances does in truth offend the Constitution by its provisions of funds, in that it exposes State money for use in advancing religion, no matter the vigilance to avoid it.” Id., at 1298- (emphasis in original). For the reasons stated, and those expressed by Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stevens, I dissent from the judgment. of the Court and the plurality’s opinion. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426475. Public record. Not legal advice.