Lemon Test

The Lemon Test, derived from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), was the dominant framework for analyzing Establishment Clause challenges for nearly five decades. Under the test, government action survived scrutiny only if it satisfied three prongs: (1) the action must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) the action's principal or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) the action must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

The test was widely criticized by justices across the ideological spectrum. Justice Scalia famously compared it to a ghoul in a horror movie that could not be killed. Courts inconsistently applied the test, and the Supreme Court itself frequently declined to use it, turning instead to endorsement analysis (Justice O'Connor's refinement of the Lemon test asking whether a reasonable observer would perceive government endorsement of religion) or coercion analysis (whether the government coerced participation in religious activity).

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), the Supreme Court formally interred the Lemon test and the endorsement test, replacing them with an analysis rooted in historical practices and understandings. Despite its demise as binding law, the Lemon test retains pedagogical importance. Many law school courses still teach it, some state courts continue to apply it under their own state constitutions, and its three prongs remain useful as analytical categories even under the new framework. Students should understand the test thoroughly but know its current status as superseded precedent.