![]() ![]() Many of the justices appeared uncertain whether their 2002 decision would automatically apply to a person's freedom to choose theology for study. Yet despite that ruling, a legal hurdle remains over those states that explicitly ban the use of voucher and scholarship programs. The justices last year decided it was permissible to offer "neutral" voucher programs if they present a "genuine choice among options, public and private, secular and religious." Simmons-Harris, where the Supreme Court upheld the use of state-funded vouchers, allowing children to attend private, parochial schools. ![]() The Davey case is a follow-up to last year's landmark case of Zelman v. "So what's the state interest in denying him, just because he declared a double major, if all the same courses could have been taken by any student?" Narda admitted Davey would have likely received the scholarship if he had not declared a theology major. Justice Anthony Kennedy sharply questioned Narda on just how "neutral" Washington's funding ban was, and whether it was fairly applied. Narda also noted, "Washington's decision not to subsidize religious instruction to implement its state constitutional policy of separation of church and state does not infringe on right to seek a theology degree." "We declined to fund religious instruction using public moneys in order to protect public citizens' freedom of conscience." Washington state's Pierce defended the ban. Why isn't that different," from other forms of discrimination, he asked, "If you had a course debunking all religion, would that be funded? I don't see how." Justice Antonin Scalia said the state was "treating religion different from non-religion. Justice O'Connor sharply questioned lawyers from both sides of the case. In Tuesday's arguments, the justices appeared split over a tricky constitutional question: the First Amendment forbids state "establishment" of religion, while in the same sentence allows its "free exercise." Which part of the Constitution holds legal sway in the Davey case?įour of the justices appeared to side with Washington state in denying Davey's scholarship, while four others indicated religious study should not be excluded from the scholarship program. Pierce: State law does not infringe on a person's right to seek a theology degree. Washington state's position is supported by a number of education and civil liberties groups. ![]() Washington Solicitor General Narda Pierce indicated the Davey case was about funding, and questioned whether states should have to pay for a person to exercise their constitutional rights. Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices the state's position was "the plainest form of religious discrimination."įive states also support Davey, as well as a number of religious groups. His attorney Jay Sekulow argued that carving out a "religious exclusion" was a clear violation of the Constitution. The scholarships remained available to students studying other fields.ĭavey's supporters say this is a case of an unfair double standard. Davey says he wanted to use his theology major as preparation for a possible career in the ministry.ĭavey's decision put him in conflict with a Washington state law banning public money for theology studies, and the money was taken away. Davey, focuses on Joshua Davey, who lost a Washington state merit scholarship when he declared theology as his major. Constitution the states may go in maintaining their own policies on church-state separation.īased on questions asked by the court during Tuesday's arguments, the deciding vote may be a familiar swing vote on the court: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.Ī ruling on the case is expected by June of next year. The justices are being asked to decide how far beyond the U.S. "We would be fighting over billions and billions of dollars."Ī decision on the case could not only have a legal impact on church-state grounds, but also in the realm of federalism - the power states have over the national government to enforce its own laws. "The implications of this case are breathtaking," Breyer said, noting governments would have to walk a fine legal line to avoid discriminating against religious programs when it came to funding for government contracting, medical training and education programs. WASHINGTON (CNN) - Supreme Court justices appeared equally divided Tuesday over the constraints governing public funding for religious studies in a case that one justice said could potentially reshape government spending on a vast scale.ĭepending on how the court rules in the case of a college student denied scholarship money to attend divinity school, government agencies across the country would have to be careful not to exclude religious programs in many areas, such as government contracting and medical programs, said Justice Stephen Breyer. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |