Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

10 

CARSON v. MAKIN 

Opinion of the Court 

that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment . . . 
will survive strict scrutiny only in rare cases.”  508 U. S., at 
546. 

This is not one of them.  As noted, a neutral benefit pro-
gram in which public funds flow to religious organizations
through  the  independent  choices  of  private  benefit  recipi-
ents  does  not  offend  the  Establishment  Clause.  See  Zel-
man, 536 U. S., at 652–653.  Maine’s decision to continue 
excluding religious schools from its tuition assistance pro-
gram  after  Zelman  thus  promotes  stricter  separation  of
church  and  state  than  the  Federal  Constitution  requires. 
See  also  post,  at  4  (BREYER,  J.,  dissenting)  (States  may 
choose “not to fund certain religious activity . . . even when 
the Establishment Clause does not itself prohibit the State 
from funding that activity”); post, at 1 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dis-
senting) (same point).

But as we explained in both Trinity Lutheran and Espi-
noza, such an “interest in separating church and state ‘more 
fiercely’  than  the  Federal  Constitution  . . .  ‘cannot  qualify 
as compelling’ in the face of the infringement of free exer-
cise.”  Espinoza, 591 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 18) (quoting 
Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 14)); see also 
Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 276 (1981) (“[T]he state 
interest . . . in achieving greater separation of church and
State  than  is  already  ensured  under  the  Establishment 
Clause  . . .  is  limited  by  the  Free  Exercise  Clause.”). 
JUSTICE  BREYER  stresses  the  importance  of  “government
neutrality” when it comes to religious matters, post, at 13, 
but there is nothing neutral about Maine’s program.  The 
State pays tuition for certain students at private schools—
so long as the schools are not religious.  That is discrimina-
tion against religion.  A State’s antiestablishment interest 
does not justify enactments that exclude some members of