Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 82.0

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

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–1195 
_________________ 

KENDRA ESPINOZA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF 
MONTANA 

[June 30, 2020]

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting. 
The majority holds that a Montana scholarship program
unlawfully  discriminated  against  religious  schools  by  ex-
cluding  them  from  a  tax  benefit.    The  threshold  problem, 
however, is that such tax benefits no longer exist for anyone
in the State.  The Montana Supreme Court invalidated the 
program on state-law grounds, thereby foreclosing the as-
applied  challenge  petitioners  raise  here.    Indeed,  nothing 
required the state court to uphold the program or the state
legislature to maintain it.  The Court nevertheless reframes 
the case and appears to ask whether a longstanding Mon-
tana  constitutional  provision  is  facially  invalid  under  the
Free  Exercise  Clause,  even  though  petitioners  disavowed 
bringing  such  a  claim.  But  by  resolving  a  constitutional
question not presented, the Court fails to heed Article III 
principles older than the Religion Clause it expounds.  Cole-
man  v.  Thompson,  501  U. S.  722,  730  (1991)  (forbidding 
“resolution  of  a  federal  question”  that  “cannot  affect”  a 
state-court judgment).

Not only is the Court wrong to decide this case at all, it 
decides it wrongly.  In Trinity Lutheran Church of Colum-
bia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. ___ (2017), this Court held, “for 
the  first  time,  that  the  Constitution  requires  the  govern-
ment to provide public funds directly to a church.”  Id., at 
___ (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1).  Here, the