Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 13

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

B 
The  “unremarkable”  principles  applied  in  Trinity  Lu-
theran and Espinoza suffice to resolve this case.  Maine of-
fers  its  citizens  a  benefit:  tuition  assistance  payments  for 
any family whose school district does not provide a public 
secondary school.  Just like the wide range of nonprofit or-
ganizations  eligible  to  receive  playground  resurfacing
grants in Trinity Lutheran, a wide range of private schools
are  eligible  to  receive  Maine  tuition  assistance  payments 
here.  And like the daycare center in Trinity Lutheran, BCS 
and Temple Academy are disqualified from this generally 
available  benefit  “solely  because  of  their  religious  charac-
ter.”  582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 10).  By “condition[ing]
the availability of benefits” in that manner, Maine’s tuition
assistance  program—like  the  program  in  Trinity  Lu-
theran—“effectively penalizes the free exercise” of religion. 
Ibid. (quoting McDaniel, 435 U. S., at 626 (plurality opin-
ion)).

Our recent decision in Espinoza applied these basic prin-
ciples in the context of religious education that we consider 
today.  There,  as  here,  we  considered  a  state  benefit  pro-
gram  under  which  public  funds  flowed  to  support  tuition
payments at private schools.  And there, as here, that pro-
gram specifically carved out private religious schools from 
those eligible to receive such funds.  While the wording of 
the Montana and Maine provisions is different, their effect 
is the same: to “disqualify some private schools” from fund-
ing  “solely  because  they  are  religious.”    591  U. S.,  at  ___ 
(slip  op.,  at  20).  A  law  that  operates  in  that  manner,  we
held in Espinoza, must be subjected to “the strictest scru-
tiny.”  Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 11–12). 

To  satisfy  strict  scrutiny,  government  action  “must  ad-
vance ‘interests of the highest order’ and must be narrowly 
tailored in pursuit of those interests.”  Church of Lukumi 
Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993) (quot-
ing McDaniel, 435 U. S., at 628 (plurality opinion)).  “A law