Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

The Court in Locke also stated that Washington’s choice
was in keeping with the State’s antiestablishment interest
in  not  using  taxpayer  funds  to  pay  for  the  training  of
clergy; in fact, the Court could “think of few areas in which 
a  State’s  antiestablishment  interests  come  more  into 
play.”  Id., at 722.  The claimant in Locke sought funding 
for  an  “essentially  religious  endeavor  . . .  akin  to  a  reli-
gious calling as well as an academic pursuit,” and opposi-
tion to such funding “to support church leaders” lay at the 
historic  core  of  the  Religion  Clauses.    Id.,  at  721–722. 
Here  nothing  of  the  sort  can  be  said  about  a  program  to 
use recycled tires to resurface playgrounds.
  Relying  on  Locke,  the  Department  nonetheless  empha-
sizes  Missouri’s  similar  constitutional  tradition  of  not 
furnishing taxpayer money directly to churches.  Brief for 
Respondent  15–16.  But  Locke  took  account  of  Washing-
ton’s antiestablishment interest only after determining, as
noted,  that  the  scholarship  program  did  not  “require  stu-
dents to choose between their religious beliefs and receiv-
ing  a  government  benefit.”    540  U. S.,  at  720–721  (citing 
McDaniel,  435  U. S.  618).    As  the  Court  put  it,  Washing-
ton’s scholarship program went “a long way toward includ-
ing  religion  in  its  benefits.”  Locke,  540  U. S.,  at  724. 
Students  in  the  program  were  free  to  use  their  scholar-
ships at “pervasively religious schools.”  Ibid.  Davey could 
use  his  scholarship  to  pursue  a  secular  degree  at  one
institution while studying devotional theology at another. 
Id., at 721, n. 4.  He could also use his scholarship money 
to  attend  a  religious  college  and  take  devotional  theology 
courses there.  Id., at 725.  The only thing he could not do
was use the scholarship to pursue a degree in that subject.
In this case, there is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is 
put  to  the  choice  between  being  a  church  and  receiving  a
government benefit.  The rule is simple: No churches need