540 U.S. 712 (2004)
The State of Washington established the Promise Scholarship Program in 1999 to assist academically gifted students with postsecondary education expenses.1 The scholarships are funded through the State's general fund and vary in amount each year, such as $1,125 for the 1999-2000 academic year and $1,542 for 2000-2001.
To qualify, a student must graduate from a Washington high school in the top 15 percent of the class or achieve high standardized test scores, have family income less than 135 percent of the state median, and enroll at least half time in an eligible postsecondary institution in the state.
The program bars students from using the scholarship to pursue a degree in devotional theology, as required by the Washington Constitution.2 Eligible institutions include accredited private colleges, including religiously affiliated ones, and the institution certifies the student's enrollment and that the student is not pursuing a devotional theology degree.3 The State does not define the term but interprets it to cover degrees devotional in nature or designed to induce religious faith.4
Joshua Davey received a Promise Scholarship and enrolled at Northwest College, a private Christian college affiliated with the Assemblies of God denomination.5 He planned to pursue a double major in pastoral ministries and business management, a course of study that includes a devotional theology component.6 After being informed he could not receive the scholarship while pursuing that major, Davey refused to sign a certification form and did not receive the funds.7
Davey sued state officials in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Free Exercise, Establishment, Free Speech, and Equal Protection Clauses.8 The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants.9 The Ninth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Whether Washington's Promise Scholarship Program, by excluding students pursuing a degree in devotional theology, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?10
The Religion Clauses permit play in the joints.11 A state may exclude funding for devotional theology degrees from an otherwise inclusive scholarship program without violating the Free Exercise Clause.12 This holds when the exclusion reflects a historic and substantial antiestablishment interest and does not evince animus toward religion.13
No. The Promise Scholarship Program as applied to Joshua Davey at Northwest College does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.14 The exclusion of devotional theology degrees imposes no criminal or civil sanctions.15 It withholds funding only for a distinct category of religious instruction.16 The state's interest in avoiding taxpayer support for the ministry is substantial and longstanding.17
This is shown by the operation of the program that still permits attendance at pervasively religious schools and other religious courses.18 The burden on Davey remains minor since he retains the ability to pursue his chosen major without the scholarship funds allocated for that purpose.19
Washington's Promise Scholarship Program does not violate the Free Exercise Clause by excluding students pursuing degrees in devotional theology.20
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Thomas
Justice Scalia dissented on the ground that the program facially discriminates against religion by carving theology out of a generally available benefit.21 Therefore it must satisfy strict scrutiny under Lukumi.22 He maintained that generally available benefits form the baseline for measuring burdens on religion.23
Withholding them solely on religious grounds violates free exercise just as a special tax would.24 Scalia rejected the historical justification because founding-era measures targeted direct support for the clergy rather than exclusion from neutral public benefits.25 He concluded that neither the lightness of the burden nor the absence of animus excuses the facial discrimination.26
Justice Thomas joined Justice Scalia's dissent in full.27 He wrote separately to note his view that the study of theology does not necessarily implicate religious devotion or faith.28 The usual definitions of "theology"—"the study of the nature of God and religious truth" and "the rational inquiry into religious questions"—include study from a secular perspective as well as a religious one.29
Because the parties agree that a "degree in theology" means a degree that is "devotional in nature or designed to induce religious faith," he assumed that is so for purposes of deciding this case.30 With this understanding, he joined Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion, agreeing that the program's facial discrimination against religion contravenes the Free Exercise Clause under existing precedent.31