Locke v. Davey

Background

The State of Washington created the Promise Scholarship Program to help high-achieving, lower-income students pay for college. The program is paid from the State’s general fund, varies in amount, and requires academic, income, and enrollment rules. Under Washington law and the State Constitution, students may not use the scholarship to pursue a degree in devotional theology; eligible institutions must certify that a student is not pursuing such a degree. Joshua Davey received an award, planned to major in pastoral ministries, was told he could not use the funds for that devotional degree, refused to certify otherwise, and sued state officials claiming violations of his constitutional rights. Lower courts split, and the Ninth Circuit struck down the exclusion before the Supreme Court reviewed the case.

Reasoning

The core question was whether Washington may, consistent with the First Amendment’s protection of religious practice, refuse to fund devotional theology under its own constitutional ban on using public money for religious instruction. The Court said yes. It explained there is “play in the joints” between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause and that Washington’s ban aims to avoid funding clergy training. The Court distinguished cases that showed hostile discrimination against religion, found this exclusion less severe, noted the program otherwise includes religious schools and allows devotional coursework, and concluded the denial of funding for vocational religious instruction does not violate the Free Exercise protection.

Real world impact

The decision lets Washington and similarly worded state rules keep public scholarship money from paying for ministry or devotional theology degrees while continuing to fund other college costs and attendance at religious schools for non-devotional study. The ruling changes how challenges to scholarship rules will be evaluated, emphasizing state constitutional anti-establishment provisions and the line between funding general education and funding clergy training.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented. They argued the exclusion facially discriminates against religion because a generally available public benefit becomes the baseline and denying it for theology majors treats religious students unequally; Thomas added points about the definition of "theology."