Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 21

18 

ESPINOZA v. MONTANA DEPT. OF REVENUE 

Opinion of the Court 

serve ill-defined interests.  Cf. Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 
491, 514 (2008). 

D 
Because the Montana Supreme Court applied the no-aid
provision to discriminate against schools and parents based
on the religious character of the school, the “strictest scru-
tiny” is required.  Supra, at 9, 12 (quoting Trinity Lutheran, 
582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11)).  That “stringent stand-
ard,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 14), is not “watered down but 
really means what it says,” Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 546 (in-
ternal quotation marks and alterations omitted).  To satisfy
it, government action “must advance ‘interests of the high-
est order’ and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those 
interests.”  Ibid. (quoting McDaniel, 435 U. S., at 628).

The  Montana  Supreme  Court  asserted  that  the  no-aid 
provision  serves  Montana’s  interest  in  separating  church
and  State  “more  fiercely”  than  the  Federal  Constitution. 
393 Mont., at 467, 435 P. 3d, at 614.  But “that interest can-
not qualify as compelling” in the face of the infringement of
free exercise here.  Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip 
op., at 14).  A State’s interest “in achieving greater separa-
tion of church and State than is already ensured under the 
Establishment  Clause  . . .  is  limited  by  the  Free  Exercise 
Clause.”  Ibid. (quoting Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 
276 (1981)).

The Department, for its part, asserts that the no-aid pro-
vision actually promotes religious freedom.  In the Depart-
ment’s view, the no-aid provision protects the religious lib-
erty  of  taxpayers  by  ensuring  that  their  taxes  are  not
directed  to  religious  organizations,  and  it  safeguards  the 
freedom  of religious  organizations  by  keeping  the  govern-
ment out of their operations.  See Brief for Respondents 17– 
23.  An infringement of First Amendment rights, however,
cannot be justified by a State’s alternative view that the in-
fringement advances religious liberty.  Our federal system