Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 24

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

the decision below as resting on state law grounds having 
nothing  to  do  with  the  federal  Free  Exercise  Clause,  see 
post, at 1, 6. 

The descriptions are not accurate.  The Montana Legisla-
ture created the scholarship program; the Legislature never
chose  to  end  it,  for  policy  or  other  reasons.    The  program
was eliminated by a court, and not based on some innocuous 
principle of state law.  Rather, the Montana Supreme Court
invalidated the program pursuant to a state law provision
that expressly discriminates on the basis of religious status. 
The  Court  applied  that  provision  to  hold  that  religious
schools  were  barred  from  participating  in  the  program.
Then, seeing no other “mechanism” to make absolutely sure 
that religious schools received no aid, the court chose to in-
validate  the  entire  program.    393  Mont.,  at  466–468,  435 
P. 3d, at 613–614. 

The final step in this line of reasoning eliminated the pro-
gram,  to  the  detriment  of  religious  and  non-religious
schools alike.  But the Court’s error of federal law occurred 
at the beginning.  When the Court was called upon to apply
a  state  law  no-aid  provision  to  exclude  religious  schools
from the program, it was obligated by the Federal Consti-
tution  to  reject  the  invitation.    Had  the  Court  recognized
that this was, indeed, “one of those cases” in which applica-
tion of the no-aid provision “would violate the Free Exercise
Clause,” id., at 468, 435 P. 3d, at 614, the Court would not 
have proceeded to find a violation of that provision.  And, in 
the absence of such a state law violation, the Court would 
have  had  no  basis  for  terminating  the  program.    Because 
the  elimination  of  the  program  flowed  directly  from  the
Montana Supreme Court’s failure to follow the dictates of
federal law, it cannot be defended as a neutral policy deci-
sion, or as resting on adequate and independent state law