The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case involving a student who was denied a state scholarship because he wanted to use it to study theology.
The student, Joshua Davey, qualified in 1999 for the Washington State Promise Scholarship Program but was then denied his award when he wanted to use it to study ministry at Northwest College in Kirkland, Wash. The Washington Constitution prohibits the use of public money to fund religious activities. Davey challenged the state and a federal appeals court ruled in his favor, claiming the state restricted his right to exercise religious freedom. The state appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
Unlike Washington, Wisconsin does not offer any state-funded scholarships, according to United Council of UW Students President Jeff Pertl. Pertl said the state awards financial aid grants based on need, and they do not have to be paid back.
\None have any restrictions on what you're studying,"" he said.
But the case's influence could spread to areas other than states' distribution of public financial aid, according to Central Washington University Professor Michael Manweller.
Manweller, who specializes in constitutional law, predicted the court would rule in favor of Davey based on precedent from previous cases, including one that involved school vouchers, Zelman v. Harris. In that case, the court ruled states could not consider whether school vouchers would be used in religious schools. Manweller drew parallels between that case and the financial aid case.
""It's very similar here-once the scholarship has transferred from the state to the pocket of the student, how he spends it should therefore be his business,"" Manweller said.
He added that if the court ruled in favor of Davey, the ruling could affect funding for religious school groups and nonprofits. For example, he said, states that award grants that exclude nonprofit groups on basis of religion would have to discontinue that practice.
On behalf of the Bush administration, Solicitor Gen. Theodore B. Olson argued before the court Tuesday that siding with the state would result in ""the plainest form of religious discrimination.""
But Justice Steven J. Breyer said it could not be considered religious discrimination any time a state refused to fund a religious program.
A ruling on the case is expected to take months.
-Los Angeles Times-
Washington Post news wire contributed to this report
