Background
Bethany Hall, a student at Liberty University, applied for the Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant Program. The program provides financial aid to students attending accredited private nonprofit colleges but excludes majors classified as religious training or theological education. Hall changed her major to Youth Ministries, a program listed under CIP Code thirty-nine, which rendered her ineligible for the grant. She sued the director of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia under Section nineteen eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code, alleging a violation of her First Amendment free exercise rights. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that Locke v. Davey controlled the case.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. The court analyzed whether the Supreme Court’s decisions in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Carson ex rel. O.C. v. Makin had abrogated Locke v. Davey. The court found that Locke remains good law because it addressed a distinct category of instruction: the training of clergy. The court explained that Locke involved a state’s historic and substantial interest in not using taxpayer funds to support church leaders. In contrast, the cases of Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson involved the disqualification of religious entities or schools solely because of their religious status. The court held that the Supreme Court has not explicitly overruled Locke and that lower courts must follow it. The court also rejected the appellant’s argument that the Lemon test should apply, noting that the Supreme Court has abandoned that test. The court concluded that the Virginia program’s exclusion of vocational religious degrees is directly analogous to the Washington scholarship program in Locke.
The Supreme Court has yet to either overrule or abandon its decision in Locke through Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, or Carson.
Hall v. Fleming, No. 25-1574, 2026 WL (4th Cir. May 13, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision confirms that states may continue to exclude funding for students pursuing degrees in religious vocations or theology without violating the Free Exercise Clause, provided the exclusion is based on the use of funds for training clergy rather than the religious status of the institution.