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

16 

CARSON v. MAKIN 

Opinion of the Court 

preventing religious organizations from putting aid to reli-
gious  uses.”  Ibid.  (emphasis  added).  And  we  noted  that 
nothing  in  our  analysis  was  “meant  to  suggest  that  we 
agree[d] with [Montana] that some lesser degree of scrutiny
applies to discrimination against religious uses of govern-
ment aid.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 12). 

Maine’s argument, however—along with the decision be-
low  and  JUSTICE  BREYER’s  dissent—is  premised  on  pre-
cisely  such  a  distinction.  See  Brief  for  Respondent  44
(“Maine has not broadly excluded private schools simply be-
cause  they  are  affiliated  with  or  controlled  by  a  religious
organization.  Rather,  a  school  is  excluded  only  if  it  pro-
motes  a  particular  faith  and  presents  academic  material
through the lens of that faith.”); 979 F. 3d, at 40 (Maine pro-
vision “does not bar schools from receiving funding simply 
based on their religious identity” but instead “based on the 
religious use that they would make of it in instructing chil-
dren.”); post, at 9 (BREYER, J., dissenting) (“[U]nlike the cir-
cumstances present in Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza, it is 
religious activity, not religious labels, that lies at the heart 
of this case.”).

That  premise,  however,  misreads  our  precedents.    In 
Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza, we held that the Free Ex-
ercise Clause forbids discrimination on the basis of religious 
status.  But those decisions never suggested that use-based 
discrimination  is  any  less  offensive  to  the  Free  Exercise
Clause.  This case illustrates why. “[E]ducating young peo-
ple  in  their  faith,  inculcating  its  teachings,  and  training 
them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the 
very core of the mission of a private religious school.”  Our 
Lady  of  Guadalupe  School  v.  Morrissey-Berru,  591  U. S. 
___,  ___  (2020)  (slip  op.,  at  18);  see  also  Hosanna-Tabor 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  and  School  v.  EEOC,  565 
U. S. 171, 192 (2012).

Any attempt to give effect to such a distinction by scruti-