Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind (1985)
- Docket
- 84-1070
- Decided
- 1985-01-01
Summary
Question: Did the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibit Washington from funding Witters’ ministerial education through the state’s vocational rehabilitation program? Conclusion: No. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court held that extending aid to Witters through Washington’s vocational rehabilitation program would be consistent with the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Justice Marshall also looked to the Lemon test, agreeing with the Supreme Court of Washington that the statute had a facially secular purpose, to promote the well-being of the visually handicapped. Justice Marshall held, however, that extending aid to Witters would not have the primary effect of advancing religion. He noted that the program did not provide greater or broader benefits for recipients who apply their aid to religious education, and that nothing in the record indicated that a significant portion of aid extended through the program would flow to religious education. He also argued that although the aid would ultimately flow to Inland Empire, this was not because of the state's actions but rather Witters’. Justice Louis Powell, joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice William Rehnquist, concurred. He argued that the statute could not have the primary effect of advancing religion because the funds were available to applicants regardless of whether their school was secular or religious; hence, any aid to religion would result from the private choices of individual beneficiaries. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor also concurred. She emphasized that any potential aid to religion would be the result of Witters’ choice, and that no reasonable observer would likely draw an inference that Washington was endorsing a religious belief or practice.