Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 89.0

8 

ESPINOZA v. MONTANA DEPT. OF REVENUE 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Trinity  Lutheran  held  that  ineligibility  for  a  government 
benefit  impermissibly  burdened  a  church’s  religious  exer-
cise  by  “put[ting  it]  to  the  choice  between  being  a  church
and receiving a government benefit.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 
13).  Invoking  that  precedent,  the  Court  concludes  that 
Montana must subsidize religious education if it also subsi-
dizes nonreligious education.3 

The  Court’s  analysis  of  Montana’s  defunct  tax  program
reprises the error in Trinity Lutheran.  Contra the Court’s 
current  approach,  our  free  exercise  precedents  had  long
granted  the  government  “some  room  to  recognize  the
unique status of religious entities and to single them out on
that basis for exclusion from otherwise generally applicable 
laws.”  Id., at ___ (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 
9).

Until Trinity Lutheran, the right to exercise one’s religion 
did not include a right to have the State pay for that reli-
gious  practice.    See  School  Dist.  of  Abington  Township  v. 
Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 226 (1963).  That is because a con-
trary rule risks reading the Establishment Clause out of the 
Constitution.  Although  the  Establishment  Clause  “per-
mit[s]  some  government  funding  of  secular  functions  per-
formed  by  sectarian  organizations,”  the  Court’s  decisions
“provide[d]  no  precedent  for  the  use  of  public  funds  to  fi-
nance religious activities.”  Rosenberger v. Rector and Visi-
tors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 847 (1995) (O’Connor, J., 
concurring).  After all, the government must avoid “an un-
lawful fostering of religion.”  Cutter, 544 U. S., at 714 (in-
ternal  quotation  marks  omitted).  Thus,  to  determine  the 
constitutionality  of  government  action  that  draws  lines 
based  on  religion,  our  precedents  “carefully  considered 

—————— 

3 Petitioners’ as-applied challenge fails under Trinity Lutheran for the 
reasons  stated  above:  The  Montana  Supreme  Court’s  remedy  does  not
put petitioners to any “choice” at all.  Rather, petitioners are free to send 
their children to any secondary school they wish while practicing their
religious beliefs, and no one receives a tax credit for their school choice.