Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 25

22 

ESPINOZA v. MONTANA DEPT. OF REVENUE 

Opinion of the Court 

grounds.4 

The Supremacy Clause provides that “the Judges in every 
State  shall  be  bound”  by  the  Federal  Constitution,  “any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Con-
trary notwithstanding.”  Art. VI, cl. 2.  “[T]his Clause cre-
ates  a  rule  of  decision”  directing  state  courts  that  they 
“must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal 
law[ ].”    Armstrong  v.  Exceptional  Child  Center,  Inc.,  575 
U. S. 320, 324 (2015).  Given the conflict between the Free 
Exercise Clause and the application of the no-aid provision
here,  the  Montana  Supreme  Court  should  have  “disre-
gard[ed]”  the  no-aid  provision  and  decided  this  case  “con-
formably to the [C]onstitution” of the United States.  Mar-
bury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178 (1803).  That “supreme 
law of the land” condemns discrimination against religious 
schools and the families whose children attend them.  Id., 
at  180.  They  are  “member[s]  of  the  community  too,”  and 
their exclusion from the scholarship program here is “odi-
ous  to  our  Constitution”  and  “cannot  stand.”  Trinity  Lu-
theran, 582 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 11, 15).5 

* 

* 
The judgment of the Montana Supreme Court is reversed,
and the case is remanded for further proceedings not incon-
sistent with this opinion. 

* 

It is so ordered. 

—————— 

4 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR worries that, in light of our decision, the Mon-
tana Supreme Court must “order the State to recreate” a scholarship pro-
gram that “no longer exists.”  Post, at 6 (dissenting opinion).  But it was 
the Montana Supreme Court that eliminated the program, in the deci-
sion below, which remains under review.  Our reversal of that decision 
simply restores the status quo established by the Montana Legislature 
before the Court’s error of federal law.  We do not consider any altera-
tions the Legislature may choose to make in the future. 

5 In light of this holding, we do not address petitioners’ claims that the
no-aid provision, as applied, violates the Equal Protection Clause or the 
Establishment Clause.