Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- States that offer college scholarships can deny them to students majoring in theology without violating their constitutional rights, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of free exercise of religion doesn't mean people studying for the ministry are entitled to state scholarship money, the justices ruled 7-2 in a case from Washington state.

``Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor,'' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court in Washington. ``That a state would deal differently with religious education for the ministry than with education for other callings'' is not evidence of ``hostility toward religion,'' he said.

The ruling slowed the court's recent trend of allowing more public aid to religious education. In 2002 the court said Cleveland can voluntarily give children tax-funded vouchers to attend religious elementary and secondary schools. In today's case, Washington's state constitution bars the use of taxpayer money for religious worship or schooling. About 35 other states have similar constitutional provisions.

The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment says, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

Faith-Based Initiative

During arguments in the case in December, some justices said a decision requiring Washington state to fund theology students would raise similar questions involving school vouchers and grants to private social-welfare groups.

Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State called the ruling ``a powerful blow against the expansion of the voucher movement and the faith-based initiatives that support religious social service programs.''

President George W. Bush has been unable to persuade Congress to enact his faith-based initiative, though he has used executive orders to let religious charities compete for federal funds. Critics say the program would allow religious groups getting government money to hire and fire workers based on religious beliefs.

Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union said the ruling ``pulls out a critical leg'' from Bush's proposal.

``This opinion says there's a middle ground where you can choose to'' fund religious activity, Shapiro said. ``But you don't have to do it, and religion can't require you to do it by claiming discrimination.''

`Including Religion'

The lawyer for the student who challenged the Washington state scholarship program didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

Rehnquist's opinion said that instead of showing hostility toward religion, the Washington scholarship program ``goes a long way toward including religion in its benefits,'' including allowing students to use scholarship money to attend accredited religion schools.

``Since the founding of our country, there have been popular uprisings against procuring taxpayer funds to support church leaders, which was one of the hallmarks of an `established' religion,'' the chief justice wrote.

Rehnquist's opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

``What next?'' Scalia wrote for the two. ``Will we deny priests and nuns their prescription-drug benefits on the ground that taxpayers' freedom of conscience forbids medicating the clergy at public expense?''

Assembly of God

The justices reversed a federal appeals court decision that said Washington discriminated against theology student Joshua Davey, who sued after being denied a state scholarship.

Washington's Promise Scholarship program provided money for two years of college to students with high grades whose family income didn't exceed a certain level. Students attending private religious schools could get a scholarship as long as they weren't majoring in theology.

Davey was a student at Northwest College, an accredited school affiliated with the Assembly of God, with a double major including pastoral ministries, designed to prepare for the ministry. He sued the state in 2000 after being denied a scholarship because he was majoring in theology.

The state had argued that denying state funding to Davey didn't keep him from practicing his religion.

Davey's lawyers called the state policy ``blatant antireligious, viewpoint-based discrimination.''

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the policy amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. Once a state creates a program, ``the benefits may not be denied on account of religion,'' the appeals court said. Today, the Supreme Court disagreed.

Davey graduated from college in June and is now a first-year law student at Harvard University.

The case is Locke v. Davey, 02-1315.

To contact the reporter on this story: Laurie Asseo in Washington at lasseo1@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: February 25, 2004 12:18 EST