Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 73.0

12 

ESPINOZA v. MONTANA DEPT. OF REVENUE 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

tax benefit here inures to donors, who choose to support a 
particular scholarship organization.  That organization, in
turn,  awards  scholarships  to  students  for  the  qualifying
school of their choice.  The majority points to cases in which 
we have upheld programs where, as here, state funds make
their way to religious schools by means of private choices. 
Ante,  at  7  (citing  Zelman,  536  U. S.,  at  649–653).    As  the 
Court  acknowledged  in  Trinity  Lutheran,  however,  that 
does not answer the question whether providing such aid is 
required.  582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6). 

Neither does it address related concerns that I have pre-
viously described.  Private choice cannot help the taxpayer
who does not want to finance the propagation of religious
beliefs, whether his own or someone else’s.  It will not help
religious minorities too few in number to support a school 
that  teaches  their  beliefs.    And  it  will  not  satisfy  those
whose religious beliefs preclude them from participating in
a  government-sponsored  program.    Some  or  many  of  the  
persons who fit these descriptions may well feel ignored—
or  worse—when  public  funds  are  channeled  to  religious
schools.  See Zelman, 536 U. S., at 728 (BREYER, J., dissent-
ing).  These feelings may, in turn, sow religiously inspired 
political  conflict  and  division—a  risk  that  is  considerably 
greater  where  States  are  required  to  include  religious
schools in programs like the one before us here.  And it is 
greater still where, as here, those programs benefit only a 
handful  of  a  State’s  many  religious  denominations.    See 
ibid.; 
(2019), 
Scholarships, 
Sky 
www.bigskyscholarships.org/schools.

Schools 

Big 

Indeed,  the  records  of  Montana’s  constitutional  conven-
tion show that these concerns were among the reasons that 
a  religiously  diverse  group  of  delegates,  including  faith 
leaders  of  different  denominations,  supported  the  no-aid 
provision.  See Brief for Respondents 18–23; Brief for Mon-
tana Constitutional Convention Delegates as Amici Curiae 
19–21, 22, 24–25 (noting support  for the provision from a