Congress provided construction grants to private colleges with the condition that funds not be used for buildings where religious instruction is offered. The provision is challenged under the Establishment Clause. Which statement is correct?

Congress provided construction grants to private colleges with the condition that funds not be used for buildings where religious instruction is offered. The provision is challenged under the Establishment Clause. Which statement is correct?

• A. The grants are unconstitutional due to entanglement.
• B. The grants are constitutional because they restrict funding to secular purposes.
• C. The grants require supervision to avoid religious use; otherwise unconstitutional.
• D. The grants preclude any religious influence and are thus unconstitutional.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that the Establishment Clause allows government aid to religiously affiliated institutions as long as the aid is neutral and used for secular purposes, so it doesn’t advance or endorse religion. Here, the construction grants are conditioned on not using the funds for buildings where religious instruction is offered. That means the money is limited to secular construction work, not for promoting religious activity. Because the funds are restricted to secular use, there’s no government endorsement of religion and no entanglement from using the funds, so the program remains constitutional. The other notions—that the grants would be unconstitutional due to entanglement, or that supervision would be required, or that they preclude any religious influence—don’t fit as well. The secular-use restriction itself neutralizes the entanglement concern, ongoing supervision isn’t necessary to maintain neutrality, and the grant doesn’t erase religious influence within the institution; it merely limits how the funds may be used.

The key idea is that the Establishment Clause allows government aid to religiously affiliated institutions as long as the aid is neutral and used for secular purposes, so it doesn’t advance or endorse religion. Here, the construction grants are conditioned on not using the funds for buildings where religious instruction is offered. That means the money is limited to secular construction work, not for promoting religious activity. Because the funds are restricted to secular use, there’s no government endorsement of religion and no entanglement from using the funds, so the program remains constitutional.

The other notions—that the grants would be unconstitutional due to entanglement, or that supervision would be required, or that they preclude any religious influence—don’t fit as well. The secular-use restriction itself neutralizes the entanglement concern, ongoing supervision isn’t necessary to maintain neutrality, and the grant doesn’t erase religious influence within the institution; it merely limits how the funds may be used.