Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 77.0

16 

ESPINOZA v. MONTANA DEPT. OF REVENUE 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

The  Court’s  reliance  in  our  prior  cases  on  the  notion  of
“play in the joints,” our hesitation to apply presumptions of
unconstitutionality,  and  our  tendency  to  confine  benefit- 
related holdings to the context in which they arose all re-
flect a recognition that great care is needed if we are to re-
alize  the  Religion  Clauses’  basic  purpose  “to  promote  and 
assure the fullest scope of religious liberty and religious tol-
erance  for  all  and  to  nurture  the  conditions  which  secure 
the  best  hope  of  attainment  of  that  end.”  Schempp,  374 
U. S., at 305 (opinion of Goldberg, J., joined by Harlan, J.); 
see Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 698 (2005) (BREYER, 
J., concurring in judgment). 

For one thing, government benefits come in many shapes
and  sizes.  The  appropriate  way  to  approach  a  State’s 
benefit-related decision may well vary depending upon the
relation between the Religion Clauses and the specific ben-
efit  and  restriction  at  issue.    For  another,  disagreements
that concern religion and its relation to a particular benefit 
may prove unusually difficult to resolve.  They may involve 
small but important details of a particular benefit program. 
Does one detail affect one religion negatively and another 
positively?  What about a religion that objects to the partic-
ular way in which the government seeks to enforce manda-
tory  (say,  qualification-related)  provisions  of  a  particular 
benefit program?  See, e.g., New Life Baptist Church Acad-
emy  v.  East  Longmeadow,  885  F. 2d  940  (CA1  1989) 
(BREYER, J., for the court).  Or the religious group that for
religious reasons cannot accept government support?  See 
Brief  for  Respondents  20–21  (noting,  inter  alia,  Seventh-
day Adventists’ support for Montana’s no-aid provision on
this  ground).  And  what  happens  when  qualification  re-
quirements mean that government money flows to one reli-
gion rather than another?  Courts are ill equipped to deal 
with such conflicts.  Yet, in a Nation with scores of different 
religions,  many  such  disagreements  are  possible.    And  I 
have only scratched the surface.