Three Liberty University students denied state tuition grants because they chose religious studies programs are pressing their case before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, extending a legal battle over whether Virginia’s higher education aid rules unlawfully exclude students pursuing religious degrees.

The appeal, filed by attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom, follows a March 31 ruling by Judge Roderick C. Young of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Young dismissed the students’ claims against the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia over the Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant program and denied a preliminary injunction, while allowing a narrower portion of the case involving the Virginia National Guard State Tuition Assistance Program to proceed on a limited factual record.

The plaintiffs are Cameron Johnson, Luke Thomas and Trace Stevens, all connected to Liberty University in Lynchburg. Johnson planned to major in Pastoral Leadership, Thomas planned to pursue Music and Worship, and Stevens, a Virginia Army National Guard member, was studying Religion on a general track, according to the complaint filed last year. They argue they were otherwise eligible for state grants but were excluded because state officials classified their programs as religious training or theological education.

The lawsuit challenges two Virginia aid systems. The Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant, commonly known as VTAG, is a longstanding state program for Virginia residents attending accredited private, nonprofit colleges and universities in the commonwealth. The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia describes the program as aid for students attending such institutions “for other than religious training or theological education.” The second program at issue provides tuition assistance to members of the Virginia National Guard.

For Johnson and Thomas, the dispute centers on VTAG eligibility. The complaint says Liberty University itself is treated as an eligible private institution under the program, but certain programs within religious fields are excluded. The students contend that distinction penalizes them because of their religious exercise and requires state officials to make judgments about which majors are too religious to receive public aid.

Stevens’ claim involves the National Guard tuition assistance program. According to the complaint, he applied for aid as a Guard member and Liberty student but was denied because his degree program was deemed to fall within religious training or theological education. The district court did not dismiss all claims tied to that program, finding the factual record on how the National Guard benefit is administered was less developed than the record on VTAG.

The legal question is complicated by competing lines of Supreme Court precedent. Virginia and the district court relied heavily on Locke v. Davey, a 2004 Supreme Court decision that upheld Washington state’s refusal to fund devotional theology degrees through a scholarship program. Young found the VTAG challenge closely analogous, reasoning that Virginia allowed students to attend religious universities and take religious courses while declining to fund religious vocational training programs.

The students argue that more recent Supreme Court decisions have changed the constitutional landscape. In cases including Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin, the court held that states may not exclude religious institutions or families from generally available public benefits solely because of religious status or religious use in certain education contexts. The plaintiffs say Virginia’s policies cross that constitutional line by withholding aid from students because of the religious character of their chosen programs.

Young rejected that argument as to VTAG at the district court stage. In a summary of the ruling, Virginia Lawyers Weekly reported that the court found Locke remained controlling and that the plaintiffs’ VTAG claims under the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause could not proceed. The court also denied preliminary relief, concluding the students had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits for the claims then before it.

The appeal gives the 4th Circuit a chance to consider how Locke fits with the Supreme Court’s newer religious-aid cases. That issue has practical implications beyond Liberty University because many states operate scholarship, tuition assistance or school-choice programs that must define which institutions, programs or uses of funds qualify for public support. A ruling for the students could narrow the room states have to exclude religious degree programs from otherwise broad aid systems. A ruling for Virginia could reaffirm that states may decline to fund vocational religious training even when religious schools participate in public aid programs.

Alliance Defending Freedom framed the case as religious discrimination against students choosing faith-based callings. In a statement reported by The Christian Post, ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch said policies that treat religious students as “second-class citizens” do not belong in law and argued that the First Amendment bars government from excluding students from otherwise available grants because they chose religious programs.

The students’ appellate brief, according to the same report, argues that Virginia has already denied Johnson, Thomas and Stevens thousands of dollars in aid based on their religious exercise and that an injunction is needed to prevent further harm while the case proceeds. The complaint originally alleged that VTAG support for eligible undergraduate students could be worth thousands of dollars per academic year, and that National Guard tuition assistance could be substantially larger depending on eligibility and remaining tuition costs.

Virginia officials have not prevailed on every point. The district court left room for further proceedings on the National Guard tuition assistance claims, noting that the record was not yet developed enough to decide whether that program is sufficiently comparable to the scholarship structure in Locke. That distinction means Stevens’ claim tied to Guard benefits remains part of the litigation even as Johnson and Thomas seek appellate review of the VTAG dismissal.

The case also highlights the administrative challenge of classifying academic programs at religious colleges. The complaint says the state uses federal Classification of Instructional Programs codes, including the Code 39 series associated with theology and religious vocations, to determine whether a program provides religious training or theological education. The students argue that approach can produce inconsistent results and gives officials discretion to favor some religiously affiliated studies while excluding others.

For Liberty University, the case is not about whether the institution can participate in state aid programs at all. The more precise dispute is whether students at an eligible religious university can be denied grants based on the specific religious content or vocational purpose of their majors. That distinction is likely to remain central as appellate judges weigh whether Virginia is drawing a constitutionally permissible funding boundary or imposing an impermissible religious exclusion.

The 4th Circuit appeal is expected to determine the next phase of the litigation. If the students succeed, the case could return to the district court with revived claims and a renewed request for relief. If Virginia’s position is upheld, the ruling would strengthen the state’s ability to maintain its exclusion for religious training and theological education within VTAG, while the narrower National Guard-related proceedings may still require additional factual development.