Facts of the Case
The Washington State Promise Scholarship, created by the state legislature in 1999, gives college scholarship money to talented students. However, this money cannot be used to obtain a degree in theology if the program is taught to cause belief. Washington's constitution prohibits funding religious instruction. The 1969 state code applied this ban to college financial aid.
Joshua Davey forfeited his Promise Scholarship money in order to major in pastoral ministries at a private Christian college. Davey filed suit in U.S. district court, claiming the state constitution's ban on funding religious instruction violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion (in the U.S. Constitution). The district court rejected Davey's claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Davey's free exercise rights were violated.
Questions
If a state provides college scholarships for secular instruction, does the First Amendment's free exercise clause require a state to fund religious instruction?
Conclusions
-
No. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court ruled that a state does not violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause when it funds secular college majors but excludes devotional theology majors. The Court rejected Davey's argument that the state scholarship program is unconstitutional because it is not neutral toward religion. "The State has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction," the Court wrote. Similarly the Washington Constitution - which explicitly prohibits state money from going to religious instruction - does not violate the free exercise clause. Unlike laws and programs the Court has struck down under the free exercise clause, nothing in either the scholarship program or the state constitution "suggests animus towards religion." States have a "historic and substantial interest" in excluding religious activity from public funding.
Religious Charter Schools: Another Brick in the Wall of Separation?
The idea that religion should be isolated from our civil institutions has overwhelmingly captured the...
Carson v. Makin: Charting a Course Beyond the Status/Use Distinction
The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Establishment Clause as requiring “governmental neutrality between religion...
The Dog That Hasn't Barked (Yet): Waiting on Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley
As the Supreme Court continues to fill its schedule for October Term 2016, one particularly...
Religious Exemptions and Third-Party Harms
Federalist Society Review, Volume 17, Issue 3
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the effect that third-party harms should have on religious...
Religious Liberty after Scalia
Some people opine that Antonin Scalia was not a friend of religious liberty, and that...
Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to review the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Trinity Lutheran...
New York and Maine High Courts Review State Financing of Schools
In the last year, the highest courts in New York and Maine issued important rulings...
I, Plaintiff: A Chat with Joshua Davey
The State of Washington’s Promise Scholarship program thrust Joshua Davey into the legal spotlight as...