Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

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

1 

ALITO, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–1195 
_________________ 

KENDRA ESPINOZA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF 
MONTANA 

[June 30, 2020] 

JUSTICE ALITO, concurring. 
I  join  the  opinion  of  the  Court  in  full.    The  basis  of  the 
decision  below  was  a  Montana  constitutional  provision
that, according to the Montana Supreme Court, forbids par-
ents  from  participating  in  a  publicly  funded  scholarship
program  simply  because  they  send  their  children  to  reli-
gious schools.  Regardless of the motivation for this provi-
sion or its predecessor, its application here violates the Free 
Exercise Clause. 

Nevertheless, the provision’s origin is relevant under the 
decision we issued earlier this Term in Ramos v. Louisiana, 
590 U. S. ___ (2020).  The question in Ramos was whether 
Louisiana  and  Oregon  laws  allowing  non-unanimous  jury
verdicts in  criminal trials violated the Sixth  Amendment. 
The Court held that they did, emphasizing that the States
originally  adopted  those  laws  for  racially  discriminatory 
reasons.  See  id.,  at  ___–___  (slip  op.,  at  1–3).    The  role 
of the Ku Klux Klan was highlighted.  See ibid.; see also id., 
at ___ (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part) (slip op., at 4); 
id.,  at  ___  (KAVANAUGH,  J.,  concurring  in  part)  (slip  op.,
at 12).

I argued in dissent that this original motivation, though
deplorable, had no bearing on the laws’ constitutionality be-
cause such laws can be adopted for non-discriminatory rea-
sons, and “both States readopted their rules under different