Amicus Curiae Brief — Ferguson v. Wamble

awe

Nos. 84-1355 and 84-1343 |

IN THE % -

Supreme Court of the Anited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1984

WILLIAM J. BENNETT, SECRETARY OF THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Appellants,

V.

G. HuGH WAMBLE, et al.,

Appellees,

and

DEMPSTER and PAULINE FERGUSON, et al.,

Appellants,

Ve

G. HuGH WAMBLE and VERLINE CoBBINS, et al.,

Appellees.

On Appeal From The United States District Court

For The Western District Of Missouri

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE

AND

BRIEF OF THE BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS AS AMICUS CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES

EARL W. TRENT, JR.

House Counsel

National Ministries

American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.

(215) 768-2487

Attorney for Amicus Curiae

NEE

PRESS OF RAM PRINTING, HYATTSVILLE, MD 20781 (301) 864-6662

Nos. 84-1355 ana 84-1343

| IN THE

Supreme Court of the Anited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1984

WILLIAM J. BENNETT, SECRETARY OF THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Appellants,

Vv.

G. HuGH WaAMBLE, et al.,

Appellees,

and

DEMPSTER and PAULINE FERGUSON, e¢ al.,

Appellants,

V.

G. HuGH WAMBLE and VERLINE CoBBINS, et al.,

Appellees.

On Appeal From The United States District Court

For The Western District Of Missouri

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE

Movant, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs,

through its attorney Earl W. Trent, Jr., moves the Court

for leave to appear and file the accompanying Brief in this

case as Amicus Curiae pursuant to Rule 36.3 of the Rules

of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The consent of appellees, through their counsel, Lee

Boothby, has been obtained and is filed simultaneously

with the filing of this Motion, but intervenor-appellants,

Dempster and Pauline Ferguson, et al., through their

ii

counsel, Charles H. Wilson, have refused to consent.

Appellants, William J. Bennett, Secretary of the United

States Department of Education, et al., through their

counsel, Michael W. McConnell, Assistant to the Solicitor

General, have given oral consent, and written consent

will be filed with the Court upon receipt by counsel for

movant.

Movant, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs

consists of representatives elected by each of eight na-

tional cooperating Baptist conventions and conferences in

the United States: American Baptist Churches in the

U.S.A.; Baptist General Conference; National Baptist

Convention of America; National Baptist Convention,

U.S.A., Ine.; North America Baptist Conference; Pro-

gressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.; Seventh Day

Baptist General Convention; and Southern Baptist Con-

vention. These Baptist groups have nearly thirty million

members and reflect the traditional Baptist concern for

proper church-state relations.

Movant has as one of its mandates the obligation to

respond “. . . whenever Baptist principles are involved

in, or are jeopardized through, governmental ac-

tions, .. . . Among Baptists, religious liberty is a fun-

damental and sacred principle. Movant has a continuing

vital interest in preserving religious liberties under the

Constitution.

This Amicus Curiae Brief attempts to present to this

Court additional insights based upon Baptist experience

in church-state matters. For numerous years prior to the

enactment of the First Amendment to the Constitution of

the United States and subsequent to its enactment, Bap-

tists have expressed their views on the principle of reli-

gious liberty.

ee om ens Seen cette ee

Movant continues that practice today with the hope

that this brief will assist the Court in its deliberations.

For the foregoing reasons, movant respectfully prays

that this Motion be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

EARL W. TRENT, JR.

House Counsel

National Ministries

American Baptist Churches

in U.S.A.

(215) 768-2487

Attorney for Amicus Curiae

; ‘ Ma P ~ 4

i ae “

coe aed fois bs |

cB Sigal is

rhe ac sia he faeiges =! pee peeve

etd nT ae

ns al

oe a ad, ,

ms PhS,

' i+ -

.

.

wm

7 -

* 2 3 -

Aa . .

~~ * ne ge tt eee me ee

ae 5 <a

4 . o a

i a

4 |

~ : o : ~ :

7 -

; : :

4

& i

’ . . 3 ™

‘ . : 4

7% es : ‘ S, , ket a . ps at

ae % ‘ . 2s ee x

m » A ; >> Se,

‘1 r a = a. a Z - ol

* . in Si v5 ~ 1 - 5 : i

Fd c “ oe ed iA = a --

s@

iv

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether an on-premises remedial instruction program

supported with Federal Funds under Title I of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as

administered in Missouri’s religiously affiliated schools,

violates the First Amendment to the United States Con-

stitution.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE ....

Qa POR oad ics o CRAs rind cc dcdacvcewsen

Be Er es RAs 6 Saba aie 00 dd Jew eee

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ...........0.020000:

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS ..........

el gm rer ee

REASONS FOR DENYING THE APPELLANTS’ JURISDICTIONAL

DD «sc uicdc Set lueeeeerkdtcen asian ehes 3

RIE 5 6 ck Kcaceadceendsnsbkecunseenteeeeen 5

I. Tuts CourT SHOULD GIVE FULL AND PLENARY Con-

SIDERATION TO THE WAMBLE CASE PRIOR TO ANY DECI-

SION IN FELTON AND GRAND Rapips SINCE WAMBLE

PRESENTS A CLEARER PICTURE OF THE PROBLEMS IN-

HERENT IN THE PROVISION OF TITLE I BENEFITS IN

RELIGIOUSLY AFFILIATED SCHOOLS .............. 5

II. THE ON-PREMISES REMEDIAL INSTRUCTION IN WAmM-

BLE EXCESSIVELY ENTANGLES THE STATE WITH THE

AFFAIRS OF THE PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS WHILE AN OFF-

PREMISES PROGRAM WOULD NOT CREATE SUCH

SEINE cov 6 cd. dccauundecs ieee ceweuedsas 9

COMI bcc cbc didacctonedacdsaastedrietedacn 12

a)

osekeue

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASEs: Page

Bennett v. Wamble, No. 77-0254-CV-W-8 (W.D. Mo.

Oe > eee 6, 11

Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v.

Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 93 S.Ct. (1973) ..... 10

Felton v. wersiagy’ & fy. United States Department of

Education, F.2d 48 (2nd Cir. 1984), cert.

GU, TER eee MED crn ascaccacecaccnse passim

Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 95 S.Ct. 1753

PE oi tedinbsekebatecieesadudeceaees 4, 9, 10, 11

National Coalition for Public Education & Religious

Liberty v. Harris, 489 F.2d 1248, appeal dismissed,

449 U.S. 808, 101 S.Ct. 55 (1980) ............... 5

Wheeler v. Barrera, 417 U.S. 402 (1974) ........... 11, 12

Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 97 S.Ct. 2593 (1977) i)

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1984

Nos. 84-1355 and 84-1343

WILLIAM J. BENNETT, SECRETARY OF THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Appellants,

Vv.

G. HucH WAMBLE, et al.,

Appellees,

and

DEMPSTER and PAULINE FERGUSON, et al.,

Appellants,

Vv.

G. HuGH WAMBLE and VERLINE CosBINs, et ai.,

Appellees.

On Appeal From The United States District Court

For The Western District Of Missouri

BRIEF OF THE BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS AS AMICUS CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES

Pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Rules of the Supreme

Court of the United States, the Baptist Joint Committee

on Public Affairs files this brief in opposition to the Appel-

lants’ Jurisdictional Statement dated February 22, 1985.

2

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs is com-

posed of representatives elected by eight national

cooperating Baptist conventions and conferences in the

United States. They are: American Baptist Churches in

the U.S.A.; Baptist General Conference; National Bap-

tist Convention of America; National Baptist Conven-

tion, U.S.A., Ine.; North American Baptist Conference;

Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.; Seventh

Day Baptist General Conference; and Southern Baptist

Convention.

The Committee, in part, seeks to apply the traditional

Baptist concerns for religious liberty and proper church-

state relations to public affairs. For nearly 40 years the

Baptist Joint Committee has served as the voice of most

Baptists in their concern for religious liberty and the

separation of church and state. Though the Joint Commit-

tee has never been a litigant in church-state cases, it has

filed amicus briefs in 20 cases beginning with Everson v.

Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) and most recently

in Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 741 F.2d

538 (1984), petition for cert. granted. In these briefs

amicus has been able to add an additional perspective to

the legal issues which might not have been brought to the

courts otherwise. Amicus believes its insights in the case

at bar will be of assistance to this Court.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

INVOLVED

1. The First Amendment ofthe United States Constitu-

tion provides in pertinent part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free ex-

ercise thereof...

3

2. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.

(1982). See Appendix D of Appellants’ Jurisdictional

Statement.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Amicus adopts the Statement of the Case as presented

in Appellees’ Motion to Affirm.

REASONS FOR DENYING THE APPELLANTS’

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Baptists believe that the receipt of public educational

benefits should not be conditioned upon a student’s reli-

gious beliefs. However, the administration of an educa-

tional benefits program that also serves private school

students must comport with the constitutional require-

ment that church and state be separated. Therefore, as

this Court has long held, there must not be a risk of

excessive entanglement between church and state in any

school, whether public or nonpublic.

Baptists agree with the decision of the district court

below that the Title I bypass provision, as currently

administered in the State of Missouri (on the premises of

religiously affiliated schools), creates excessive entangle-

ment between church and state, and thus violates the

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The in-

junction issued by the district court, however, was stayed

pending disposition by this Court of Felton v. Secretary

United States Dept. of Education, 739 F.2d 48 (2nd Cir.

1984), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ____ (1984). Another case

pending before this Court will also have an impact on the

district court’s injunction in the case at bar. See School

District of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 718 F.2d 1389 (6th Cir.

1983), cert. granted, 104S.Ct. 1412 (1984) (Establishment

Clause challenge to a state-funded program providing

_————————

4

courses to private school students at their private

schools).

Instead of holding the case at bar in abeyance pending

the decisions in Felton and Grand Rapids, the Baptist

Joint Committee on Public Affairs urges this Court to

give full and plenary consideration to the case at bar prior

to deciding Felton and Grand Rapids, or in the alterna-

tive, to defer the decisions in Felton and Grand Rapids

until argument has been heard in the present case. As

shall be discussed in this brief, both Felton and Grand

Rapids have inadequate factual records when compared

to the extensive factual record in the case at bar. The

factual record in this case will allow this Court to reach an

informed decision with respect to the issue of publicly-

funded educational benefits given to private school stu-

dents on premises of religiously affiliated schools. Bap-

tists fear that the inadequate records in Felton and Grand

Rapids will lead this Court to reverse its holding in Meek

v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 345, 95 S.Ct. 1753 (1975) (where

this Court struck down a Pennsylvania program which

provided teaching and other services in nonpublic schools

by public personnel on the grounds that it presented an

unbearable risk of entanglement between church and

state). The Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs

believes that this Court’s holding in Meek is correct and

should be affirmed. A reconsideration of Meek based on

cases presented with inadequate factual records may re-

sult in impermissible entanglement by the government

with the affairs of religious schools. The Baptist Joint

Committee on Public Affairs believes that the provisions

of public educational benefits to private school students

must be off the premises of religiously affiliated schools to

be constitutional.

5

i

THIS COURT SHOULD GIVE FULL AND PLENARY

CONSIDERATION TO THE WAMBLE CASE PRIOR TO ANY

DECISION IN FELTON AND GRAND RAPIDS SINCE

WAMBLE PRESENTS A CLEARER PICTURE OF THE

PROBLEMS INHERENT IN THE PROVISION OF TITLE I

BENEFITS IN RELIGIOUSLY AFFILIATED SCHOOLS.

Neither Felton nor Grawd Rapids presents a detailed,

comprehensive picture of the problems inherent in

government-funded remedial educational services pro-

vided to educationally disadvantaged school children on

the premises of religiously affiliated schools. In Felton,

six federal taxpayers brought suit challenging New York

City’s use of Title I funds to finance programs which

involved sending public school teachers and other profes-

sionals into religious schools to provide remedial instruc-

tion and clinical and guidance services. 739 F.2d at 52.

The parties in Felton stipulated that the case was to be

decided upon the record in the case of National Coalition

for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Harris, 489

F.2d 1248, appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 808, 101 S.Ct. 55

(1980) (hereafter cited as “PEARL,” involving a similar

challenge to the same program at issue in Felton), along

with certain affidavits. Id. In PEARL, the evidence was

presented “in the form of a narrative summary which

synthesized numerous affidavits and documentary evi-

dence describing the operation of the City’s Title I pro-

gram in nonpublic schools. A few witnesses were also

called.” Felton, 73 F.2d at 52. The district court in

PEARL found that the program as carried out did not

violate the Establishment Clause and dismissed the com-

plaint. Id. An appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed

for want of jurisdiction. Id. Thus, the record in PEARL

was a mere summary of the evidence. That same record

was relied upon by the parties in Felton, which only

involved a motion for summary judgment.

6

In School District of Grand Rapids, various citizens of

the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, challenged as tax-

payers a Shared Time and Community Education Pro-

gram operated by the School District of the City of Grand

Rapids on school premises owned and operated by reli-

gious denominations. 718 F.2d at 1390. The case was

heard by the district judge in an eight-day trial. Id. That

judge recused himself, and the case was transferred to

another judge, who by stipulation of the parties, decided

the case on the basis of transcript testimony and other

written documentary evidence. Id. The District Court

held that public tax support for the programs in the

parochial schools, in spite of measures taken to eliminate

the risk of entanglement, had an impermissible effect of

advancing religion and entangling the government with

religion. Id. at 1391. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit affirmed. Id. at 1408. It must be noted that Grand

Rapids did not involve the Title I program, but rather a

state-funded program. For this reason, even though the

issues may be similar to those in the case at bar, the

record in Grand Rapids is inadequate to deal with the

issues presented in Felton and Wamble.

Although Amicus agrees with the holdings in Felton, it

believes that the present case of Bennett v. Wamble,

77-0254-CV-W-8 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 28, 1984), presents a

complete and more detailed description of how Title I is

typically administered. The record in Wamble is ex-

tensive. The case was first filed in 1977, and extensive

discovery has been conducted by both parties since that

time. After four and a half years of pendency, the case

came to trial in 1982. The court held twenty-three sepa-

rate days of trial (while Felton was a motion-for-

summary-judgment case). (App. 2a). Wamble even deals

with an aspect of the Title I program which was not

scrutinized in F'elton—the bypass program. Whereas the

7

Title I program in Felton relied on public school teachers

to provide the on-premises remedial services, Wamble

dealt with the hiring of an independent contractor to

provide those services after the Secretary of Education

deemed that public school teachers could not be sent to

the parochial schools. If this Court decides Felton and not

Wamble, the constitutionality of this bypass program will

remain unclear since Fe/ton did not involve such a pro-

gram. This will mean that even if sending public school

teachers to the parochial schools is held by this Court to

be unconstitutional, the use of independent contractors

for the provision of such services will continue the

entanglement of government with the affairs of religious-

ly affiliated schools under the by-pass program.

Furthermore, the factual setting in Felton is very dif-

ferent from the factual setting in Wamble. In Felton,

there were no cited instances of government entangle-

ment with religion. In Wamble, on the other hand, there

were several. For example, in 1976, representatives of

the parochial schools in Missouri asked the U.S. Secreta-

ry of Education to consider a bypass of the state and local

educational agencies. (App. 8a). The Director of Gov-

ernmental Programs for the Archdiocese of St. Louis

wrote a letter to the State Board of Education protesting

the State Board of Education’s refusal to provide reme-

dial teachers within the parochial schools. (App. 9a). In

the same year, the Secretary of Education authorized the

implementation of the bypass provision. (App. 10a). Not

only did the government immediately invoke the bypass

provision at the request of the parochial schoois, but it

hired a religiously affiliated contractor to perform the

remedial services in the parochial schools—the Blue Hills

Home Corporation (BHHC). The district court found that

at the time the initial award was made for the bypass

program, BHHC was a religiously affiliated entity. (App.

8

lla). BHHC was incorporated as a nonprofit Missouri

corporation by four affiliates of St. Therese Catholic

Church, including Father Norman Rotert. Id. It oper-

ated out of office space owned by the church, and many of

the teachers hired were affiliated with the church. Id.

Although the district court noted that BHHC changed its

apparent character and became “ostensibly neutral” (by

moving its operations to a commercial mall, and having

79% of the teachers assigned to schools with religious

affiliations different from their own), the facts remain

that the executive director of BHHC is a former Catholic

priest who attended a seminary with Father Rotert, and

21% of the teachers are being sent to schools affiliated

with their own religion. (App. 11a).

In 1980, the Department of Education required BHHC

to obtain assurances from nonpublic school officials that

the facilities were religiously neutral. However, the De-

partment did not define what was meant by “religiously

neutral,” and BHHC did not define that term for the

nonpublic school principals. (App. 14a). Many Title I

rooms were labeled as “Title I” rooms without any notice

to students that Title I was operated by the federal

government and not by the religious school. (App. 15a).

Religious symbols were found inside Title I classrooms on

fifteen occasions. Id. Although the symbols and artifacts

were removed from some classrooms, in at least one

instance the removal occurred amid protests from the

pastor and school board and after the superintendent of

the Kansas City Archdiocese Schools consulted the

bishop. Id. Furthermore, the evidence indicated that

“other incidents may have occurred—a Title I teacher

would not necessarily report the presence of a religious

symbol if handled without argument at the ‘school

level.’ ” Id.

9

Amicus submits that the factual setting in Wamble

best portrays how the government and parochial schools

are becoming entangled with the affairs of each other in

violation of the establishment clause. The evidence of this

entanglement in Wamble is more than the mere risk of

entanglement which the court in Felton considered cru-

cial. If this Court decides Felton without considering the

facts in Wamble, this Court could find that on-premises

instruction by public teachers in nonpublic schools can be

carried out without any risks of entanglement. The lack of

evidence of entanglement in Felton, together with the

system of surveillance implemented by the New York

City officials in that case would support that view. Wam-

ble, however, shows that no matter how much neutrality

is sought there will inevitably be instances of entangle-

ment as shown by the record. Amicus contends that Meek

should be preserved as the law of the land in order to

prevent the entanglement present in Wamble. Whether

it is public school teachers or teachers hired by an inde-

pendent contractor, publicly-funded personnel inside

parochial schools “are performing important educational

services in schools in which education is an integral part of

the dominant sectarian mission and in which an atmos-

phere dedicated to the advancement of religion is con-

stantly maintained.” Meek, 421 U.S. at 371. This the

establishment clause does not permit.

Il

THE ON-PREMISES REMEDIAL INSTRUCTION

PROGRAM IN WAMBLE EXCESSIVELY ENTANGLES THE

STATE WITH THE AFFAIRS OF THE PAROCHIAL

SCHOOLS WHILE AN OFF-PREMISES PROGRAM WOULD

NOT CREATE SUCH ENTANGLEMENT.

In Wolman v. Walter, 483 U.S. 299, 247 97 S.Ct. 2593

(1977), this Court emphasized that the danger of

10

entanglement present in Meek “arose from the fact that

the services were performed in the pervasively sectarian

atmosphere of the church-related school. . . . The danger

existed there, not because the public employee was likely

deliberately to subvert his task to the service of religicn,

but rather because the pressures of the environment

might alter this behavior from its normal course.” This

Court noted in Wolman that “[s]o long as these types of

services are offered at truly religiously neutral locations,

the danger perceived in Meek does not arise.” Id. The

nature of the services in Wamble, since they are provided

on the premises of the parochial schools, precisely creates

the danger of entanglement that this Court wanted to

avoid in Meek. The key to the issue is that the facilities be

religiously neutral, something which the facilities in

Wamble are not. Therefore, remedial services provided

to students in parochial schools must be provided off of

the premises of the religiously affiliated school, whether

public school teachers are employed, or whether a bypass

alternative is chosen. After all, “[s]upervision of public

employees performing public functions on public proper-

ty does not create any entanglement between church and

state.” Wolman, 433 U.S. at 248. “Instruction conducted

on the premises of pervasively sectarian institutions, on

the other hand, while providing a practical response to

the growing economic needs of parochial schools and the

state, creates in Missouri an unacceptable risk that teach-

ers here will foster religion and the corresponding ne-

cessity for excessively entangling surveillance.” Wam-

ble, (App. 33a).

As this Court espoused in Committee for Public Edu-

cation & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756,

797-98, 93 S.Ct. 2955 (1973), it is known “from long expe-

rience with both Federal and State Governments that aid

programs of any kind tend to become entrenched, to

11

escalate in cost, and to generate their own aggressive

constituencies.” If the decision in Meek is reversed be-

cause of the inadequate factual record of Felton, this

Court would be ignoring the type of entanglement that is

present in Wamble. Consequently, if on-premises in-

struction is sanctioned, the on-premise programs will

most likely become entrenched and escalate in costs.

Most importantly, on-premises instruct’ 9n will continue

entangling the state with the affairs of the church and the

parochial schools—an evil which this Court has long shun-

ned. Wamble, not Felton, contains the extensive

evidentiary record that this Court has required in Wheel-

er v. Barrera, 417 U.S. 402 (1974). Wheeler involved a

challenge by parents of children attending nonpublic

schools in Kansas City, Missouri. The parents complained

that the Missouri education officials were violating Title I

by not making expenditures for children in parochial

schools. The state officials contended that the best solu-

tion was to provide on-premises remedial instruction dur-

ing regular school hours, but that such solution would

violate the establishment clause. This Court decided not

to rule on the constitutionality of the on-premises pro-

gram, noting that “the First Amendment implications [of

a program] may vary according to the precise contours of

the plan that is formulated.” 417 U.S. at 426. This Court

also pointed out that “(i]t [would have been] wholly inap-

propriate for us to attempt to render an opinion on the

First Amendment issue when no specific plan [was] be-

fore us.” Id. Wambdle presents a plan that has been in

effect for more than five years and with “contours” clearly

delineated in the record.

Wheeler is very relevant to the case at bar because it

represents the first case in which this Court gave plenary

consideration to the application of Title I to parochial

schools. It is also important because it shows that this

12

Court is not unfamiliar with educational administration in

the State of Missouri. This Court noted in Wheeler that

although the Missouri state officials could adopt an on-

premises plan, the State also could “approve plans that do

not utilize on-the-premises private school Title I instruc-

tion.” 417 U.S. at 423. This Court pointed out that the

State could use neutral sites or summer programs. id. at

425. In general, this Court preferred not to suggest any

particular alternative to on-premisés instruction:

In essence, respondents are asking this Court to

hold, as a matter of federal law, that one mode of

delivering remedial Title I services is superior to

others. To place on this Court, or on any federal

court, the responsibility of ruling on the relative

merits of various possible Title I programs seriously

misreads the clear intent of Congress to leave deci-

sions of that kind to the local and state agencies.

Id. Thus, under Wheeler, it is perfectly permissible vo

have off-premises remedial instruction in the factual set-

ting of Wamble in order to avoid government entangle-

ment with religion. What particular off-premises are

available or are best-suited to help underprivileged stu-

dents is beyond the scope of the courts.

CONCLUSION

The record in Wamble allows this Court to have a full

pic’ ~:ve of a remedial, on-premises program that has been

in etfect for more than five years and on which there is

substantial evidence. The cases of Felton and Grand

Rapids do not contain such a comprehensive record.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully

13

requested that Wamble be given full and plenary consid-

eration before Felton and Grand Rapids, or in the alter-

native, that this Court defer its decision in those cases

until argument has been heard on the Wamble ease.

Respectfully submitted,

EARL W. TRENT, JR.

House Counsel

National Ministries

American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.

(215) 768-2487

Attorney for Amicus Curiae