Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

ESPINOZA ET AL. v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF 
REVENUE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA 

No. 18–1195.  Argued January 22, 2020—Decided June 30, 2020 

The Montana Legislature established a program that grants tax credits
to those who donate to organizations that award scholarships for pri-
vate school tuition.  To reconcile the program with a provision of the
Montana  Constitution  that  bars  government  aid  to  any  school  “con-
trolled  in  whole  or  in  part  by  any  church,  sect,  or  denomination,” 
Art. X, §6(1), the Montana Department of Revenue promulgated “Rule 
1,” which prohibited families from using the scholarships at religious
schools.  Three mothers who were blocked by Rule 1 from using schol-
arship funds for their children’s tuition at Stillwater Christian School 
sued the Department in state court, alleging that the Rule discrimi-
nated on the basis of their religious views and the religious nature of
the school they had chosen.  The trial court enjoined Rule 1.  Reversing,
the  Montana  Supreme  Court  held  that  the  program,  unmodified  by
Rule 1, aided religious schools in violation of the Montana Constitu-
tion’s no-aid provision.  The Court further held that the violation re-
quired invalidating the entire program. 

Held: The application of the no-aid provision discriminated against reli-
gious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend
them in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the Federal Constitu-
tion.  Pp. 6–22.

(a) The  Free  Exercise  Clause  “protects  religious  observers  against 
unequal treatment” and against “laws that impose special disabilities
on the basis of religious status.”  Trinity Lutheran Church of Colum-
bia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. ___, ___.  In Trinity Lutheran, this Court 
held that disqualifying otherwise eligible recipients from a public ben-
efit “solely because of their religious character” imposes “a penalty on 
the free exercise of religion that triggers the most exacting scrutiny.”