Court OKs Aid to Ministry Student : Upholds Use of Public Vocational Funds for Disabled Man

WASHINGTON —  The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that the constitutional separation of church and state does not prohibit public financial aid to a disabled person studying to become a minister.

The court, upholding the Reagan Administration and several religious organizations, overturned a decision by the Washington state Supreme Court that found such assistance by the state to violate the Constitution’s mandate against government establishment of religion.

As they have in previous church-state cases, the justices drew a distinction between aid to a religious individual and aid to a religious institution.

A Washington state program, providing vocational assistance to all eligible disabled students, “is in no way skewed towards religion” and “is not one of the ingenious plans” for improperly channeling state aid to sectarian schools, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote for the court.

Individual’s Decision

“The fact that aid goes to individuals means that (any) decision to support religious education is made by the individual, not by the state,” Marshall said.

The ruling represented a temporary victory, at least, for Larry Witters, a blind, 28-year-old former college student who had been training for the ministry at the Inland Empire School of the Bible in Spokane, Wash. Denied vocational assistance by the state court ruling, Witters dropped out of school with one year to go and has been washing laboratory dishes at a private laboratory since.

The high court’s ruling does not assure that Witters will receive state assistance, however. The court remanded the case (Witters vs. Washington, 84-1070) for further proceedings in the state courts to give authorities an opportunity to argue that aid still could be denied under the Washington Constitution.

The justices specifically left open the question of whether further denial of aid would violate Witters’ federal constitutional right to free exercise of religion.

Called ‘Death Blow’

Nonetheless, both Witters and his lawyer expressed satisfaction with Monday’s decision. Attorney Michael P. Farris said that, although the ruling broke no new constitutional ground, it may serve as a “decisive death blow” to efforts to extend the separation of church and state to “extreme” limits.

Witters said he is “thrilled but not surprised” and expressed hope that he could soon resume his religious studies. In the wake of widespread publicity about the case, several churches have expressed interest in hiring him as a minister when he has completed his education.

The case arose in 1980, when a state agency denied Witters vocational funds on the grounds that such assistance is barred to applicants pursuing religious careers. The state high court upheld the agency by a vote of 7 to 2, basing its ruling on the federal Constitution’s establishment clause.

Witters appealed to the Supreme Court, drawing support from the Justice Department, which said that the state decision could threaten the GI Bill and other programs that provide government funds to individuals to use at their discretion in obtaining an education.

Foes Cite Constitution

On the other side, the state, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the Constitution prevents state authorities from financing the education of students who want to become ministers.

The justices’ ruling carefully left intact previous rulings that forbid governmental aid that effectively provides a subsidy to a religious school.

But the Washington vocational assistance program is permissible, providing for aid direct to the student for use at the institution of his or her choice, the court held. It creates no financial incentive for students to undertake religious careers, nor does it limit benefits to those who attend religious institutions, the justices said.

Education Secretary William J. Bennett praised the ruling, saying that it enhances educational choice by parents and students. “The court’s reasoning is heartening,” he said, adding that he sees support in the decision for the Administration’s plan to provide vouchers to parents of needy students for use at public or private schools.

Drug Testing Cleared

In another action, the court, in a brief order (Dole vs. Railway Labor, A-551), cleared the way for federal authorities to begin a drug and alcohol-use testing program for the nation’s railroad workers.

The justices overturned an order issued Jan. 3 by a federal appeals panel in San Francisco that temporarily blocked the program--the first of its kind in the federally regulated transportation industry--pending a ruling on a challenge to its constitutionality by labor unions.

Government attorneys had asked Justice William H. Rehnquist to set aside the appellate order so the program could go into effect while the program’s validity was argued before the appeals court. Rehnquist, in turn, referred the issue to the full high court.

The government, in a petition by Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Hanford Dole, called drug and alcohol use by railroad workers a “serious problem that requires immediate attention.”

After Serious Accidents

The regulations, which were to go into effect Jan. 6, require train crews to undergo tests as soon as possible after serious accidents and also authorize tests in some less-serious incidents.

Attorneys for the Railway Labor Executives Assn. challenged the rules, saying that the government’s statistical data was “grossly exaggerated” and that “indiscriminate” tests violate the constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches. The union said that it emphatically does not condone drug or alcohol use by railroad workers.

The court, in another case (Jeppesen & Co. vs. Brocklesby, 85-742), bypassed a chance to decide whether the right of free speech protects a company from a negligence action when it accurately publishes government-supplied data.

The justices let stand a ruling upholding a $12.7-million judgment last year against Jeppesen & Co., a subsidiary of Times Mirror Co., in a 1973 airplane crash in Alaska that killed six persons. A federal appeals court in San Francisco held that the company was liable for defective charts it published that were used by the crew, even though they accurately reflected information provided by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Company lawyers contended that the decision could subject commercial publishers to liability without fault for defects in information provided by the government--such as weather forecasts or recommended pesticide or herbicide concentrations.