Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

be administered in accordance with Article X, section 6, of 
the Montana Constitution, which contains a “no-aid” provi-
sion  barring  government  aid  to  sectarian  schools.    See 
Mont.  Code  Ann.  §15–30–3101.    In  full,  that  provision 
states: 

“Aid prohibited to sectarian schools. . . . The leg-
islature,  counties,  cities,  towns,  school  districts,  and 
public corporations shall not make any direct or indi-
rect appropriation or payment from any public fund or 
monies, or any grant of lands or other property for any 
sectarian  purpose  or  to  aid  any  church,  school,  acad-
emy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or
scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by
any  church,  sect,  or  denomination.”  Mont.  Const., 
Art. X, §6(1). 

Shortly  after  the  scholarship  program  was  created,  the
Montana  Department  of  Revenue  promulgated  “Rule  1,”
over the objection of the Montana Attorney General.  That 
administrative rule prohibited families from using scholar-
  Mont.  Admin.  Rule 
ships  at  religious  schools.
§42.4.802(1)(a) (2015).  It did so by changing the definition
of  “qualified  education  provider”  to  exclude  any  school 
“owned or controlled in whole or in part by any church, re-
ligious sect, or denomination.”  Ibid.  The Department ex-
plained that the Rule was needed to reconcile the scholar-
ship  program  with  the  no-aid  provision  of  the  Montana 
Constitution. 

The Montana Attorney General disagreed.  In a letter to 
the Department, he advised that the Montana Constitution
did  not  require  excluding  religious  schools  from  the  pro-
gram, and if it did, it would “very likely” violate the United
States  Constitution  by  discriminating  against  the  schools 
and  their  students.    See  Complaint  in  No.  DV–15–1152A
(Dist. Ct. Flathead Cty.), Exh. 3, pp. 2, 5–6.  The Attorney
General is not representing the Department in this case.