I agree with you about Roe. The Lemon test, however, seems to be different. The First Amendment already existed, and it has a long history. Each of the three prongs of the Lemon test is based on earlier cases. The Lemon case seems to be an attempt by the court to summarize several previous First Amendment cases, and to restate their rulings in one tidy package. Maybe the court did its work well, or maybe not. I'm no expert on First Amendment litigation. But this area of the law seems very different from Roe, which appears to have been created out of the thin air.
Beginning with Everson (mainly), the left took activist aim at their goal which resulted in Lemon. Lemon is simply a leftist interpretation of the First Amendment, nothing more.
When I have time I will trace the history of the Lemon test and display its leftist lineage for all to see. This has been done before in many publications and like I said, legal conservatives have always known Lemon to be the culmination of a leftist wish list.
The ACLU, Larry Tribe and all those who agree with judicial activism through an oligarchy, loved the Lemon test, it was their leftist dream come true.
As far as precedent was concerned, Lemon ignored most legal history and relied almost entirely upon very recently created precedent that had itself ignored precedent. The only precedent it relied upon was precedent created by pure leftist activism beginning largely in the 1940s.
I would not be so sure the defendants cannot pass the lemon test. I think it does.
Based on the current make-up of the USSC, I think there may be a dtrong inclination to take this case if for no other reason than to kill the Lemon test.