Mueller v. Allen
| Mueller v. Allen | |
|---|---|
| Argued April 18, 1983 Decided June 29, 1983 | |
| Full case name | Mueller v. Allen |
| Citations | 463 U.S. 388 (more) 103 S. Ct. 3062; 77 L. Ed. 2d 721; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 96 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 514 F. Supp. 998 (D. Minn. 1981); affirmed, 676 F.2d 1195 (8th Cir. 1982); cert. granted, 459 U.S. 820 (1982). |
| Holding | |
| A state income tax deduction that is available for expenses incurred in sending children to both public and private schools does not violate the Establishment Clause even if it can be used for religious schools. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, White, Powell, O'Connor |
| Dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| First Amendment | |
Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case examining the constitutionality of a state tax deduction granted to taxpaying parents for school-related expenses, including expenses incurred from private secular and religious schools. The plaintiffs claimed that a Minnesota statute, allowing tax deductions for both public and private school expenses, had the effect of subsidizing religious instruction since parents who paid tuition to religious schools received a larger deduction than parents of public school students, who incurred no tuition expenses.
In a 5–4 decision, the Court upheld the statute. The majority affirmed that the benefit was religiously neutral because the deduction applied equally to sectarian and nonsectarian tuition and that the choice of religious or nonreligious instruction was made by individual parents, not the state. Also, aid was given to parents, not schools.
The dissenting opinion argued that the tax deduction violated the US Constitution because it was an indirect government subsidy of religion, providing a financial incentive to parents to send their children to religious schools.