Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

otherwise  eligible  church-owned  preschool  was  denied  a 
grant  to  resurface  its  playground.   Missouri’s  policy  dis-
criminated against the Church “simply because of what it
is—a church,” and so the policy was subject to the “strictest 
scrutiny,”  which it failed.  Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 11– 
15).  We  acknowledged  that  the  State  had  not  “criminal-
ized” the way in which the Church worshipped or “told the 
Church that it cannot subscribe to a certain view of the Gos-
pel.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 11).  But the State’s discrimina-
tory  policy  was  “odious  to  our  Constitution  all  the  same.” 
Id., at ___ (slip op., at 15). 

Here  too  Montana’s  no-aid  provision  bars  religious
schools from public benefits solely because of the religious
character  of  the  schools.  The  provision  also  bars  parents
who wish to send their children to a religious school from
those  same  benefits,  again  solely  because  of  the  religious
character  of  the  school.  This  is  apparent  from  the  plain 
text.  The  provision  bars  aid  to  any  school  “controlled  in 
whole  or  in  part  by  any  church,  sect,  or  denomination.” 
Mont. Const., Art. X, §6(1).  The provision’s title—“Aid pro-
hibited  to  sectarian  schools”—confirms  that  the  provision
singles out schools based on their religious character.  Ibid. 
And the Montana Supreme Court explained that the provi-
sion forbids aid to any school that is “sectarian,” “religiously
affiliated,” or “controlled in whole or in part by churches.” 
393 Mont., at 464–467, 435 P. 3d, at 612–613.  The provi-
sion plainly excludes schools from government aid solely be-
cause of religious status.  See Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., 
at ___–___ (slip op., at 9–10). 

The Department counters that Trinity Lutheran does not 
govern  here  because  the  no-aid  provision  applies  not  be-
cause  of  the  religious  character  of  the  recipients,  but  be-
cause of how the funds would be used—for “religious educa-
tion.”  Brief  for  Respondents  38.  In  Trinity  Lutheran, a 
majority of the Court concluded that the Missouri policy vi-
olated the Free Exercise Clause because it discriminated on