Mr. ARGUE: Josh Davey was -- send me every student like that -- man or woman -- you can find. Outstanding, brilliant.

O'BRIEN: Smart enough to graduate at the top of his class, deliver the commencement speech, and get admitted to Harvard Law School.

Davey will be in the courtroom December 2, when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up his case.

Mr. DAVEY: The state can't legitimately say we're not preventing you from practicing religion when they're actively discouraging that practice through withholding funds, or through any other means. And that creates a hostile attitude, hostile environment toward religion, and the state is no longer neutral once they've done that.

O'BRIEN: Besides, says Davey, the money doesn't go to support religious schools, only to the students who want to study there.

The Bush administration is siding with Davey in the case, telling the justices in a "friend of the court" brief that disqualifying theology majors from scholarship eligibility "violates the fundamental constitutional command that the state may not target religion for discriminatory treatment."

Ms. PIERCE: We don't believe that's what we're doing, or what the framers in 1889 thought they were doing. There's a broader landscape of religious freedom -- part of it is the right of individuals to exercise their beliefs, undertake their religious practices, but another aspect is to keep the church and state separate.

O'BRIEN: To reconcile this conflict, the Supreme Court may have to reconcile some of its own conflicting decisions. For example, the justices have ruled that states must have discretion to decide how to spend limited tax dollars -- but they've also taken a dim view of any government action that smacks of discrimination against religion.

So, when the University of Virginia subsidized several student newspapers in 1994 but declined to help one with a Christian perspective, the court stepped in, finding that a violation of free speech. But just because someone has a constitutional right doesn't mean the government has to subsidize that right.

For example, the court has also ruled that while a woman has a constitutional right to choose abortion, the government doesn't have to pay for it and may even use taxpayer money to promote alternatives to abortion.

This new case will likely split the court -- as have so many religion cases in the past -- and some of the most conservative justices like William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas -- whose votes are crucial -- may have torn allegiances, forced to choose between accommodating religious freedom or supporting states' rights.

Professor A. E. HOWARD (University of Virginia Law School): Some of the same justices who care the most about federalism and are most inclined to respect states' decisions tend to be the justices who will be more sensitive to the claims of religious groups that they're being discriminated against in the allocation of religious resources.

O'BRIEN: Last year, in a case from Cleveland, the high court ruled that states may provide tuition vouchers to parents sending their children to parochial schools. That decision was seen as a huge victory for religious schools; a ruling striking down the Washington program could go much further.

Prof. HOWARD: I think the Davey case is as important potentially as any church and state case the court has heard in the last decade.

There are a lot of state constitutions like the one in the state of Washington. It would be a green light to litigation to strike down those provisions as well.

O'BRIEN: As for Davey himself, the dispute has him redirecting some of his energy and intellect away from theology -- toward constitutional law. His own case could produce yet a whole new chapter on separation of church and state.

For RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY, I'm Tim O'Brien in Cambridge, Mass.