Staff Reports
Liberty University student Bethany Hall has taken her case to the U.S. Supreme Court. She filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the justices to review and overturn Locke v. Davey, the 2004 decision that let states deny scholarship money for ministerial or devotional degrees. The petition was filed on Aug. 11, 2026 and is docketed as No. 26‑193.
What happened and what’s at stake
Hall lost a Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant worth up to $5,000 a year after she changed majors at Liberty University to programs SCHEV treats as ministerial, like youth ministries and music & worship. The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) enforces a rule that excludes vocational or ministerial programs — classified under CIP code 39 — from VTAG. Hall says that is religious discrimination and that the government cannot pull a benefit because a student chooses a religious calling.
The legal fight: Locke v. Davey under the microscope
The Fourth Circuit relied on Locke v. Davey — the Supreme Court case that allowed Washington to deny scholarship funds to a student studying devotional theology — and upheld Virginia’s rule. Hall’s petition asks the Supreme Court to revisit that line of cases. Petitioners argue more recent decisions on religious liberty make Locke an outlier and that states should not be able to cut off aid simply because a student’s major is labeled “religious.” In short: the question presented is whether the Court should overrule Locke.
Who’s arguing the case and the next steps
Hall is backed by a coalition of religious‑liberty groups and lawyers, including the National Legal Foundation, First Liberty Institute, Alliance Defending Freedom, Troutman Pepper, Steven W. Fitschen, John J. Bursch and Joshua D. Davey. The respondent named is A. Scott Fleming, Director of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia. The Supreme Court docket shows the petition is filed and a response is due in the certiorari stage. If the Court takes the case, expect amicus briefs and sharp fights over what “equal treatment” of faith should mean for public programs.
Why conservatives should care
This is more than a $5,000 grant. If the Court agrees with Hall, states that now bar aid for ministerial programs will have to rethink rules that treat religion as a disqualifier. Conservatives who care about religious freedom and equal treatment should watch this closely. If the Court refuses review, Locke stays on the books and a line will remain in place deciding who is worthy of taxpayer‑funded help. Either way, the battle shows how a single bureaucratic code can force students to choose between following a call and getting a hand up — and that choice should trouble anyone who believes government should not pick winners and losers based on faith.
