UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones Spring 2010 An Analysis of First Amendment jurisprudence on the Supreme Court case of Locke v. Davey Alexander John Herzog University of Nevada Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Educational Administration and Supervision Commons, and the Education Policy Commons Repository Citation Herzog, Alexander John, "An Analysis of First Amendment jurisprudence on the Supreme Court case of Locke v. Davey" (2010). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/1348611 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN ANALYSIS OF FIRST AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE ON THE SUPREME COURT CASE OF LOCKE V. DAVEY by Alexander John Herzog Associate of Arts Adirondack Community College 1989 Bachelor of Arts State University of New York, College at Potsdam 1991 Master of Science Indiana State University 1995 A dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Education in Education Leadership Department of Educational Leadership College of Education Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas March 2010 ABSTRACT An Analysis of First Amendment Jurisprudence On the Supreme Court Case of Locke v. Davey by Alexander J. Herzog Dr. Gerald C. Kops, Examination Committee Chair Professor of Educational Leadership University of Nevada, Las Vegas Scholarship programs authored by state legislatures may conflict with a state’s constitution. In the case of Locke v. Davey 540 U.S. 807 (2003), Joshua Davey challenged the State of Washington’s withdrawal of his Promise Scholarship claiming violation of his First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. This historical case study analyzes the Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding legal issues concerning the issuance of state funded scholarships for the purpose of religious studies. The study included a review of all relevant court cases, court filings, legal journals and legal briefs. Synthesizing this information provided a refined understanding of the implications of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the impact of this case on federal and state funded scholarship programs. An analysis of the impact of Locke and other relevant decisions is offered to state administrators of scholarships that are publicly funded so that administrators may review and adjust their policies in accordance with legal precedent. iii A micro legal analysis of Justice Rehnquist’s opinion was also performed using the judicial decision making template formulated by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo describing a general process for judicial decision making. Chief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion in the Locke v. Davey case was examined using the template to determine whether his decision making approach is congruent with the advice of Judge Cardozo. (Cardozo 1921) The micro analysis of the decision indicated that Justice Rehnquist utilized the decision making template developed by Judge Cardozo. A macro legal analysis was also implemented to determine if the decision in Locke v. Davey supported or refuted Jeffery Rosen’s theory that the Supreme Court makes decisions based on public sentiment.(Rosen 2006). The macro legal analysis determined that the decision in Locke v. Davey could be credibly argued as supporting and refuting Rosen’s theory thereby highlighting the imprecision of the theory and the need for further development of Rosen’s theoretical framework. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 Joshua Davey Background ............................................................................... 4 Washington Constitution Article Section 11 ....................................................... 5 Davey v Locke ................................................................................................... 8 Overview of First Amendment Religion Clauses ............................................. 10 Higher Education and Religion ........................................................................ 13 Research Problem ........................................................................................... 17 Research Questions ........................................................................................ 18 Method of Study .............................................................................................. 19 Content Analysis ............................................................................................. 20 Definition of Terms .......................................................................................... 21 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................... 25 Significance of the Study ................................................................................. 26 Summary ......................................................................................................... 27 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................... 28 The Bill of Rights ............................................................................................. 28 First Amendment Historical Perspective .......................................................... 33 The Blaine Amendment ................................................................................... 39 History of Promise Scholarship ....................................................................... 42 Background of Locke v. Davey Case .............................................................. 43 Relevant Judicial Precedent ............................................................................ 47 Locke v Davey 2003: Petition for Writ of Certiorari .......................................... 69 Response to the Petitioner .............................................................................. 72 Petitioner Reply ............................................................................................... 76 Petition Granted .............................................................................................. 76 Merit Brief for the Petitioner ............................................................................. 76 Respondent Brief on the Merits ....................................................................... 79 Petitioners Reply Brief ..................................................................................... 80 Amicus Curiae Briefs ....................................................................................... 84 Amicus Curiae Briefs in Support of Petitioner – Gary Locke ........................... 85 Amicus Curiae Briefs in Support of Respondent – Joshua Davey ................... 91 Oral Arguments ............................................................................................... 98 The Locke v Davey Decision ......................................................................... 106 Summary ....................................................................................................... 119 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 121 A Qualitative Legal Research Design ............................................................ 121 Micro / Macro Analysis .................................................................................. 127 Oral Arguments Attendance .......................................................................... 133 iv Summary ....................................................................................................... 134 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ................................................... 135 Research Questions and Answers ................................................................ 135 Summary ....................................................................................................... 156 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. 160 Summary of the Lock v Davey Case ............................................................. 160 Recommendations for Further Study ............................................................. 168 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 170 EPILOGUE ....................................................................................................... 174 Court Cases Since Locke v. Davey Opinion .................................................