Columbia Union College v. Clarke
Headline: Court declines to review Maryland’s move to bar a religious college from a state financial aid program, leaving lower-court rulings intact while a Justice objects to the 'pervasively sectarian' exclusion test.
Holding: The Court denied review of the Fourth Circuit’s handling of Maryland’s exclusion of Columbia Union College from a state aid program, leaving the lower-court outcome and legal tests in place.
- Leaves states free to exclude 'pervasively sectarian' schools from aid programs.
- Keeps lower-court legal uncertainty about religious discrimination unresolved.
- Allows continued state laws barring theology students or sectarian colleges.
Summary
Background
Maryland runs a program named for Father Sellinger that gives per-student financial aid to many private colleges. Columbia Union College, a Seventh-day Adventist-affiliated school, was deemed “too religious” and excluded. The college sued, saying the exclusion violated its rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection. The District Court and the Fourth Circuit found the State had infringed one or more rights but relied on an older test to justify the exclusion.
Reasoning
The central question is whether a State may refuse neutral public aid to a college because it is considered “pervasively sectarian” — meaning its religious mission is deeply integrated with its educational work. The Supreme Court declined to review the case, leaving the lower-court approach in place. Justice Thomas, in a dissent from that denial, argues the old “pervasively sectarian” test conflicts with later decisions that allow religious organizations to receive public benefits when the government applies neutral, secular rules.
Real world impact
Because the Court refused review, the lower-court result and the contested test remain effective for now. That means states may continue using the “pervasively sectarian” label to block some religious colleges or students from aid programs. The dissent warns this approach invites discrimination and leaves conflicting rulings across different states.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas urges the Court to abandon the test and adopt a clear rule of neutrality toward religion, citing past decisions that permitted religious groups to receive neutral public benefits and highlighting growing lower-court confusion.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?