The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that states can deny public-scholarship funds from students enrolled in school for religious studies.
In a 7-2 decision, the court determined it was not unconstitutional for the state of Washington to refuse to give scholarship money for a college student studying to be a minister.
“[Washington’s program] imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite. It does not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit. The State has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction.” Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the court’s opinion.
The state of Washington’s Promise Scholarship Program financially assists students pursuing higher-education studies but excludes those individuals who intend to major in devotional theology studies from receiving money. The case’s plaintiff, Joshua Davey, was awarded money from the program to attend school at Northwest College, an accredited, private, religious institution. When he decided to major in pastoral ministries, the program notified him his scholarship money could not be used to pursue his degree.
Davey argued that the program’s exclusionary policy toward religious studies students is unconstitutional because it clearly violates the free exercise of religion principle.
The majority of justices, however, argued there will always exist a “play in the joints” between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, meaning the tension between equal protection and the separation of church and state is difficult to work out.
University of Wisconsin political science professor Howard Schweber said the case brought several different principles into contention, as the court was forced to sift between federalism, separation of church and state and previous rulings on public money for religious use.
“It looks to me as though the decision is a kind of middle ground where states can fund religious speech but don’t have to,” Schweber said, adding that the court is working to limit the rules they previously set in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia where they found it unconstitutional to deny religious groups funding given to other organizations.
“[The justices] are saying there is a big difference in speaking in a religious voice and training for a religious profession,” Schweber said.
He added the ruling Tuesday acts more as a limiting principle, distinguishing between students pursuing religious professions and merely writing essays on religious topics. He did not think it marked the beginning of decisions that would eventually ban the school-vouchers program.
However, the dissenting justices, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, argued the ruling is a blow to the Free Exercise Clause, because states can withhold benefits from individuals based solely on religion. They claim the decision, “sustains a public benefits program that facially discriminates against religion.”
“Let there be no doubt,” Justice Scalia wrote in the dissenting opinion. “This case is about discrimination against a religious minority.”
