Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

16 

ESPINOZA v. MONTANA DEPT. OF REVENUE 

Opinion of the Court 

in general”; many of its state counterparts have a similarly 
“shameful pedigree.”  Mitchell, 530 U. S., at 828–829 (plu-
rality opinion); see Jorgenson, supra, at 69–70, 216; Jeffries 
&  Ryan,  A  Political  History  of  the  Establishment  Clause,
100 Mich. L. Rev. 279, 301–305 (2001).  The no-aid provi-
sions  of  the  19th  century  hardly  evince  a  tradition  that 
should  inform  our  understanding  of  the  Free  Exercise
Clause. 

The Department argues that several States have rejected
referendums  to  overturn  or  limit  their  no-aid  provisions, 
and that Montana even re-adopted its own in the 1970s, for 
reasons unrelated to anti-Catholic bigotry.  See Brief for Re-
spondents 20, 42.  But, on the other side of the ledger, many 
States today—including those with no-aid provisions—pro-
vide support to religious schools through vouchers, scholar-
ships, tax credits, and other measures.  See Brief for Okla-
homa  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  29–31,  33–35;  Brief  for 
Petitioners 5.  According to petitioners, 20 of 37 States with
no-aid provisions allow religious options in publicly funded
scholarship  programs,  and  almost  all  allow  religious  op-
tions in tax credit programs.  Reply Brief 22, n. 9.

All to say, we agree with the Department that the histor-
ical record is “complex.”  Brief for Respondents 41.  And it 
is true that governments over time have taken a variety of 
approaches to religious schools.  But it is clear that there is 
no “historic and substantial” tradition against aiding such
schools comparable to the tradition against state-supported
clergy invoked by Locke. 

C 

Two  dissenters  would  chart  new  courses. 

JUSTICE 
SOTOMAYOR  would  grant  the  government  “some  room”  to 
“single . . . out” religious entities “for exclusion,” based on 
what she views as “the interests embodied in the Religion 
Clauses.”  Post, at 8, 9 (quoting Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., 
at ___, ___ (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 8, 9)).