An analysis of First Amendment jurisprudence on the Supreme Court case of Locke v. Davey.

摘要

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.;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.