Locke v. Davey
| Locke v. Davey | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 2, 2003 Decided February 25, 2004 | |
| Full case name | Gary Locke, Governor of Washington, et al., Petitioners v. Joshua Davey |
| Citations | 540 U.S. 712 (more) 124 S. Ct. 1307; 158 L. Ed. 2d 1; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1626; 72 U.S.L.W. 4206; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 163 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | |
| Holding | |
| A Washington publicly funded scholarship program which excluded students pursuing a "degree in theology" does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of a Washington publicly funded scholarship program which excluded students pursuing a "degree in devotional theology". This case examined the "room ... between the two Religion Clauses", the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the court, with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting.
Background
[edit]The legislature of Washington State created the Promise Scholarship in 1999 for students who met academic, enrollment, and income qualifications. The scholarship, funded by the State's general fund, was sent directly to the academic institution to be distributed to the student who could use the funds to pay for their educational expenses.
Students could use the funds to attend any accredited institution, including religious private institutions, as long as they were not enrolled in a degree program that was "devotional in nature or designed to induce religious faith".[1] Joshua Davey received a Promise Scholarship and enrolled at a private Christian college. When he found out he would not be able to receive his scholarship money if he enrolled as a theology major he filed a lawsuit in the District Court arguing violations of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He lost on all counts. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah to uphold the Free Exercise claim saying it was express discrimination that the "State had singled out religion for unfavorable treatment".[2]
The Washington State Constitution did not allow public funds to be used to aid religion: "No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction". Zelman v. Simmons-Harris had decided that the independent choice of the recipient saved vouchers from an Establishment Clause challenge. The Court now had to decide if public aid for religious education could be banned by state constitutions without violating the Free Exercise Clause.[3]
Supreme Court
[edit]Majority opinion
[edit]Writing for the majority Justice Rehnquist interpreted the Free Exercise Clause as limiting government regulation of the clergy. The Court said that "there is room for play in the joints" between the Religion Clauses: "there are some state actions permitted by the Establishment Clause but not required by the Free Exercise Clause".[4]
The Court distinguished the case from McDaniel v. Paty by deciding that an exception for the training of clergy was "not evidence of hostility toward religion".[5][6] The Court held that there was nothing "inherently constitutionally suspect" in the denial of funding for vocational religious instruction. Even if there were, Washington had a "substantial state interest" in not funding "devotional degrees".
The 7-2 decision upheld the statute. States could make public funds available for students pursuing religious studies without violating the Establishment Clause, but not making the scholarship available was not a Free Exercise violation. The Court decided that in this case, the state had simply declined to provide such financial aid.[7]
Subsequent developments
[edit]In Trinity Lutheran the clergy training exception allowed Chief Justice John Roberts to distinguish Locke v. Davey. The Court noted that public funding for improving a playground does not raise the same establishment concerns as training of clergy, and applies McDaniel v. Paty because "Davey was not denied a scholarship because of who he was; he was denied a scholarship because of what he proposed to do—use the funds to prepare for the ministry."[8]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Locke v. Davey, 540 US 712, 716
- ^ Kaplin & Lee 2011, p. 51
- ^ Finkelman, Paul (2018). Routledge Revivals: Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties (2006): Volume 3, R - Z. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-26970-4.
- ^ Chemerinsky & Gillman 2020, p. 87
- ^ Locke v. Davey, 540 US 712, 720-721
- ^ Denning, Brannon P. (2019). Glannon Guide to Constitutional Law: Learning Constitutional Law Through Multiple-Choice Questions and Analysis. Aspen Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5438-0698-4.
- ^ Hall 2005, p. 591
- ^ Chemerinsky & Gillman 2020, p. 88
Further reading
[edit]- Chemerinsky, Erwin; Gillman, Howard (2020). The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-069974-1.
- Hall, Kermit L. (2005). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-972535-9.
- Green, Steven K. (2004). "Locke v. Davey and the Limits to Neutrality Theory". Temple Law Review. 77 (4): 913–956.
- Kaplin, William A.; Lee, Barbara A. (2011). The Law of Higher Education. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-04659-3.
External links
[edit]- Text of Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist Oyez (oral argument audio)