Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 56

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

1 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

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  GINSBURG,  with  whom  JUSTICE  KAGAN  joins, 

dissenting. 

The Montana Legislature enacted a scholarship program
to  fund  tuition  for  students  attending  private  secondary
schools.  See Mont. Code Ann. §15–30–3111 (2019).  In the 
decision  below,  the  Montana  Supreme  Court  struck  down 
that program in its entirety.  The program, the state court
ruled, conflicted with the State Constitution’s no-aid provi-
sion, which forbids government appropriations to religious
schools.  Mont. Const., Art. X, §6(1).  Parents who sought to
use the program’s scholarships to fund their children’s reli-
gious  education  challenged  the  state  court’s  ruling.    They
argue in this Court that the Montana court’s application of 
the  no-aid  provision  violated  the  Free  Exercise  Clause  of
the  Federal  Constitution.    Importantly,  the  parents,  peti-
tioners here, disclaim any challenge to the no-aid provision 
on its face.  They instead argue—and this Court’s majority 
accepts—that  the  provision  is  unconstitutional  as  applied 
because  the  First  Amendment  prohibits  discrimination  in 
tuition-benefit programs based on a school’s religious sta-
tus.  Because the state court’s decision does not so discrim-
inate, I would reject petitioners’ free exercise claim. 

The  First  Amendment  prohibits  the  government  from
“mak[ing a] law . . . prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.