Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 22

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

19 

Opinion of the Court 

prizes  state  experimentation,  but  not  “state  experimenta-
tion in the suppression of free speech,” and the same goes
for the free exercise of religion.  Boy Scouts of America v. 
Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 660 (2000).

Furthermore, we do not see how the no-aid provision pro-
motes religious freedom.  As noted, this Court has repeat-
edly  upheld  government  programs  that  spend  taxpayer 
funds on equal aid to religious observers and organizations, 
particularly  when  the  link  between  government  and  reli-
gion is attenuated by private choices.  A school, concerned 
about government involvement with its religious activities, 
might reasonably decide for itself not to participate in a gov-
ernment program.  But we doubt that the school’s liberty is
enhanced  by  eliminating  any  option  to  participate  in  the
first place.

The  Department’s  argument  is  especially  unconvincing 
because the infringement of religious liberty here broadly 
affects both religious schools and adherents.  Montana’s no-
aid  provision  imposes  a  categorical  ban—“broadly  and
strictly”  prohibiting  “any  type  of  aid”  to  religious  schools. 
393 Mont., at 462–463, 435 P. 3d, at 611.  This prohibition 
is far more sweeping than the policy in  Trinity Lutheran, 
which barred churches from one narrow program for play-
ground resurfacing—causing “in all likelihood” only “a few 
extra scraped knees.”  582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15).   

And the prohibition before us today burdens not only re-
ligious schools but also the families whose children attend 
or hope to attend them.  Drawing on “enduring American
tradition,” we have long recognized the rights of parents to 
direct “the religious upbringing” of their children.  Wiscon-
sin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 213–214, 232 (1972).  Many par-
ents  exercise  that  right  by  sending  their  children  to  reli-
gious schools, a choice protected by the Constitution.  See 
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534–535 (1925). 
But the no-aid provision penalizes that decision by cutting
families off from otherwise available benefits if they choose