Jewish Groups Split over Ruling on Parochial School Interpreter

In an important test of church-state separation, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that a deaf student enrolled in a parochial school may have access to a sign language interpreter paid with public funds.

The Jewish community was sharply split in its reaction to the court’s 5-4 decision Friday in Zobrest vs. Catalina Foothills School District, which overturned rulings by two lower courts.

Among the groups supporting the court’s decision were the American Jewish Congress, the social action arm of the Reform movement and a number of Orthodox groups.

They argued that the case in question did not violate the separation of church and state that is generally important to Jewish groups.

Expressing disappointment with the court’s ruling were, among others, the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League.

These groups believe that the presence of a public employee in a parochial school, interpreting information that could include some religious content, would violate the First Amendment clause prohibiting government “establishment of religion.”

The case involved a former Arizona high-school student, James Zobrest, who is deaf and required the use of an interpreter to attend classes.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that the service in question was “part of a general government program that distributes benefits neutrally to any child qualifying as ‘handicapped’ ” without regard to the type of school the child attends.

But in dissent, Justice Harry Blackmun argued that “until now, the court never has authorized a public employee to participate directly in religious indoctrination. Yet that is the consequence of today’s decision.”

‘THE WORST IS OVER’

Some in the Jewish community were concerned that the court, in deciding the Zobrest case, would weaken or overturn a legal doctrine known as the “Lemon test,” named after the 1971 case Lemon vs. Kurtzman.

The Lemon test requires all government activity and law to meet three criteria: its principal purpose must be secular; its effect must neither enhance nor inhibit religion; and it cannot involve excessive government entanglement with religion.

Many Jewish groups back the Lemon test because it provides a strict standard for ensuring separation of church and state. But some Orthodox groups oppose the doctrine, contending that it has created a climate hostile to religion.

On Friday, groups noted that the Lemon test had emerged intact, and Marc Stern, co-director of legal affairs for AJCongress, said he felt that “probably the worst is over” concerning threats to the doctrine.

Nathan Lewin, a Washington attorney who serves as vice president of COLPA, the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, which represents the interests of observant Jews in courts and legislatures, said, on the other hand, that the court should have gone further in its decision and “discarded” the Lemon test.

Some in the Jewish community speculated that the imminent retirement of Justice Byron White, who ruled with the majority in Zobrest, could have an impact on church-state cases, especially those decided on a 5-4 basis.

But some Jewish officials also pointed out that in this latest case, two of the dissenting justices did so on procedural rather than constitutional grounds, meaning that only two of the nine justices saw the practice as violating the First Amendment.

The court has decided several recent church-state cases in favor of religious groups, including decisions allowing animal sacrifice in religious rituals and allowing a public school to be used to show religious films after school hours.