Docket nos. 84-1070 End date 1986 | Citations 474 U.S. 481 (more) | |
Full case name Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind Prior history Washington Supreme Court denied Witters's petition for relief, 102 Wash. 2d 624 (1984); 689 P. 2d 53 (1984). US Supreme Court granted certiorari. Subsequent history On remand, the Washington Supreme Court declined to require the Department to provide to Witters with vocation aid under the Free Exercise Clause, and the US Supreme Court declined certiorari. Majority Marshall, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Rhenquist, Powell, Blackmun, Stevens | ||
Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled that the Establishment Clause did not prevent the state of Washington from providing financial vocational assistance to a blind man who sought to study at a Christian college to become a pastor, missionary, or youth pastor. The Court ruled that the Establishment Clause does not prevent financial assistance from a state vocational rehabilitation program from being used for religious instruction.
Contents
Background
Larry Witters was eligible under Washington state law to receive financial assistance to pursue vocational instruction. At the time, he was attending a private Bible college with the intent to pursue a career as a pastor, missionary, or youth minister. The Commission for the Blind denied him aid on the basis that the Washington State Constitution barred state funds from being used to assist an individual in pursuit of a career or degree in theology. The Washington Supreme Court sustained the Commission's decision but used the US Constitution as the basis for its decision.
Decision
In a 9-0 holding, the Court ruled in favor of Witters. The Court reasoned that the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman was applicable and that aid to Witters would meet the Lemon test. The Court found that there was a clear secular purpose to the law. Also, the Court ruled that the primary effect of the statute was an effect on Witters, not religion. Finally, the case was ruled to have no entanglement with religion since the decision as to where the aid money would be spent was made solely by the individual, not by any government agency so the Establishment Clause was not violated.
Counsel
Witters was represented by Michael P. Farris. Timothy R. Malone represented the respondent.