Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 39

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

5 

ALITO, J., concurring 

The resulting wave of state laws withholding public aid 
from “sectarian” schools cannot be understood outside this 
context.  Indeed, there are stronger reasons for considering
original  motivations  here  than  in  Ramos  because,  unlike 
the  neutral  language  of  Louisiana’s  and  Oregon’s  non-
unanimity  rules,  Montana’s  no-aid  provision  retains  the 
bigoted  code  language  used  throughout  state  Blaine 
Amendments. 

The failed Blaine Amendment would have prohibited any 
public funds or lands devoted to schooling from “ever be[ing] 
under the control of any religious sect.”  4 Cong. Rec. 205 
(1875).  As originally adopted, Montana’s Constitution pro-
hibited  the  state  and  local  governments  from  “ever
mak[ing,] directly or indirectly, any appropriation” for “any 
sectarian purpose” or “to aid in the support of any school . . . 
controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect or denom-
ination whatever.”  Mont. Const., Art. XI, §8 (1889).  At the 
time,  “it  was  an  open  secret  that  ‘sectarian’  was  code  for
‘Catholic.’ ”  Mitchell, 530 U. S., at 828 (plurality opinion).
Dictionaries defined a “sectarian” as a member “of a party