Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

even operate boarding schools of its own.  As we held in Es-
pinoza, a “State need not subsidize private education.  But 
once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some pri-
vate schools solely because they are religious.”  591 U. S., 
at ___ (slip op., at 20). 

B 
The Court of Appeals also attempted to distinguish this 
case  from  Trinity  Lutheran  and  Espinoza  on  the  ground
that the funding restrictions in those cases were “solely sta-
tus-based  religious  discrimination,”  while  the  challenged 
provision here “imposes a use-based restriction.”  979 F. 3d, 
at 35, 37–38.  JUSTICE BREYER makes the same argument. 
Post, at 8–9, 13–14 (dissenting opinion).

In  Trinity  Lutheran,  the  Missouri  Constitution  banned 
the use of public funds in aid of “any church, sect or denom-
ination of religion.”  582 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 2–3). 
We  noted  that  the  case  involved  “express  discrimination 
based on religious identity,” which was sufficient unto the 
day in deciding it, and that our opinion did “not address re-
ligious uses of funding.”  Id., at ___, n. 3 (plurality opinion) 
(slip op., at 14, n. 3).

So  too  in  Espinoza,  the  discrimination  at  issue  was  de-
scribed by the Montana Supreme Court as a prohibition on 
aiding  “schools  controlled  by  churches,”  and  we  analyzed 
the issue in terms of “religious status and not religious use.” 
591 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 10).  Foreshadowing Maine’s
argument here, Montana argued that its case was different 
from Trinity Lutheran’s because it involved not playground
resurfacing, but general funds that “could be used for reli-
gious ends by some recipients, particularly schools that be-
lieve faith should ‘permeate[]’ everything they do.”  Id., at 
___ (slip op., at 11).  We explained, however, that the strict 
scrutiny triggered by status-based discrimination could not 
be avoided by arguing that “one of its goals or effects [was]