Document Type

Response or Comment

Publication Date

1993

Publication Citation

43 Case Western Reserve Law Review 865 (1993)

Abstract

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.

Download

Share

COinS