18 Pages Posted: 28 Jun 2006
This article responds to an article by Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, entitled "Lemon Is Dead," in which Paulsen interprets the Supreme Court's decision in Lee v. Weisman to repudiate the Establishment Clause test of Lemon v. Kurtzman and to replace it with a test that limits the Clause to cases involving direct or indirect coercion. The article disputes Paulsen's interpretation of Weisman, and it also disputes his normative argument in support of the coercion approach. It contends that Lemon survives Weisman, and that Lemon's multi-faceted and context-specific approach, however vague, is preferable to a test that focuses exclusively on the problem of coercion.
Keywords: Constitutional Law, Establishment Clause, Religious Liberty
JEL Classification: K00, K10, K19, K30, K39
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Conkle, Daniel O., Lemon Lives. Case Western Reserve Law Review, Symposium on Religion and the Public Schools After Lee v. Weisman, Vol. 43, pp. 865-82, 1993; Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=912530