Does the Supreme Court's decision in Locke v. Davey - concerning a college scholarship for underprivileged students that was denied to a divinity student attending an evangelical college - have implications for the debate about vouchers and the effort to roll back Blaine Amendments in 32 states? (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=125#1565 and http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=24#102 for earlier coverage of this case.) At first blush, it seems not. The seven-justice majority was clearly bending over backwards to craft a narrow ruling, with Chief Justice Rehnquist closing his opinion with the admonition that the Court "need not venture further into this difficult area" in upholding the Washington State program - a pretty clear reference to the voucher debate. But while we'd like to agree with the Institute for Justice, which argued the case, that the court "made it very clear that the training of ministers was the only issue presented in Locke v. Davey," we suspect that Justice Scalia is correct. He closed his dissent by noting, "Today's holding is limited to training the clergy, but its logic is readily extendible, and there are plenty of directions to go." Scalia mentions one - denying ministers Medicare benefits on grounds that a state benefit was flowing to a religious entity. We'd add another, and predict that someone is going to sue to bar theology students from federal student tuition aid programs. And yes, one of those directions, we imagine, will be attempts to overturn state K-12 voucher programs for their supposed collusion with religious education. A Supreme mess.
Supreme Court Slip Opinion in Locke v. Davey, February 25, 2004,
"Supreme Court approves denial of divinity scholarships," by David Stout, New York Times, February 25, 2004 (registration required)