Facts: Washington Revised Code §74.16 entitled legally blind Washington residents to receive vocational assistance from the state, including educational financial aid. Petitioner Larry Witters, a legally blind student pursuing a degree in biblical studies at Inland Empire School of the Bible, requested financial assistance authorized by this statute from the Commission for the Blind. His request was rejected due to the fact that the Commission for the Blind concluded that state provision of financial assistance to individuals studying in preparation for careers as pastors or missionaries would violate Article 1 §11 and Article 9 §4 of the Washington State Constitution, which forbid the establishment of religion. Witters subsequently filed suit to contest this decision, ultimately resulting in the Supreme Court of Washington ruling that the Commission for the Blind had been correct in denying Witters aid insofar as to grant financial aid to Witters would violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Supreme Court of Washington’s decision on appeal, ruling that no violation of the Establishment Clause would occur by permitting individuals such as Witters to benefit from a general program of vocational assistance for the legally blind. The case was thereby remanded to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Does denying state financial aid to students preparing for religious careers that is available to students preparing for non-religious careers violate the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment?

If not, would granting such assistance violate the prohibition against the expenditure of state funds for religious instruction in Article I §11 of the Washington State Constitution?

Conclusion: Justice Andersen’s opinion for the Court held that denying financial aid to students pursuing religious programs of study that is available to students pursuing secular programs of study does not violate the Free Exercise Clause as the state’s denial of aid would not compel or pressure Witters and those similarly situated to violate their religious beliefs. Given this, the Court further concluded that the denial of aid was appropriate since Article I §11 bars the state from providing financial aid to individuals such as Witters by imposing an absolute prohibition against funding religious instruction and indoctrination.

Docket No. 49673-1

Petitioner: Larry Witters

(Counsel: Michael P. Farris)

Respondent: Commission for the Blind

(Counsel: Kenneth O. Eikenberry, David R. Minikel, and Timothy R. Malone)

Decided: Thursday, April 20th, 1989

Prevailing Party: Commission for the Blind (Respondent)

Vote: 5-4

Opinion: 112 Wn.2d 363 (1989)

Court: Callow1 Court (1989)

Callow

Utter

Brachtenbach

Dolliver

Dore

Pearson

Andersen

Durham

Smith