For Your Data Locke V. Davey Instance Brief
August 17, 2020
Edit
Locke v. Davey representative brief summary
540 U.S. 714 (2004)
Respondent educatee sued petitioner officials of the State of Washington under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleging that the State's prohibition of educational assistance for the pursuit of a theology flat violated the student's correct to costless practice of religion. Upon the grant of a writ of certiorari, the officials appealed the judgment of the U.S. of A. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which held that the prohibition was unconstitutional.
CASE FACTS
The prohibition against using State scholarship funds to pursue a theology flat codified the Washington Constitution's limited prohibition against appropriating State funds for religious instruction. The student, who otherwise qualified for State educational assistance, argued that the scholarship programme unconstitutionally singled out organized religious belief for unfavorable handling without existence narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling acre interest.
DISCUSSION
The judgment, that the prohibition against the role of State funds to pursue a theology flat was unconstitutional, was reversed.
540 U.S. 714 (2004)
Respondent educatee sued petitioner officials of the State of Washington under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleging that the State's prohibition of educational assistance for the pursuit of a theology flat violated the student's correct to costless practice of religion. Upon the grant of a writ of certiorari, the officials appealed the judgment of the U.S. of A. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which held that the prohibition was unconstitutional.
CASE FACTS
The prohibition against using State scholarship funds to pursue a theology flat codified the Washington Constitution's limited prohibition against appropriating State funds for religious instruction. The student, who otherwise qualified for State educational assistance, argued that the scholarship programme unconstitutionally singled out organized religious belief for unfavorable handling without existence narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling acre interest.
DISCUSSION
- The U.S. of A. Supreme Court held that, piece the federal constitution did non foreclose the election of religious instruction using authorities assistance, the State's broader prohibition reflected its substantial involvement against the establishment of organized religious belief past times funding devotional degrees, together with the prohibition was non violative of the federal constitution since the exclusion of such funding placed a relatively nestling burden on the student.
- That the State dealt differently amongst teaching for the ministry building than amongst teaching for other callings was non testify of hostility toward religion, peculiarly since the scholarship programme did non prohibit attendance at religious institutions or a curriculum which included devotional theology courses.
The judgment, that the prohibition against the role of State funds to pursue a theology flat was unconstitutional, was reversed.