Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 10

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 6) (quot-
ing Locke v. Davey, 540 U. S. 712, 718 (2004)).  Here, the 
parties do not dispute that the scholarship program is per-
missible under the Establishment Clause.  Nor could they.
We have repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause is
not  offended  when  religious  observers  and  organizations
benefit  from  neutral  government  programs.    See,  e.g., 
Locke, 540 U. S., at 719; Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors 
of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 839 (1995).  See also Trinity 
Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6) (noting the par-
ties’ agreement that the Establishment Clause was not vio-
lated  by  including  churches  in  a  playground  resurfacing 
program).  Any Establishment Clause objection to the schol-
arship program here is particularly unavailing because the 
government support makes its way to religious schools only 
as a result of Montanans independently choosing to spend 
their scholarships at such schools.  See Locke, 540 U. S., at 
719;  Zelman  v.  Simmons-Harris,  536  U. S.  639,  649–653 
(2002).  The Montana Supreme Court, however, held as a 
matter of state law that even such indirect government sup-
port qualified as “aid” prohibited under the Montana Con-
stitution. 

The question for this Court is whether the Free Exercise
Clause precluded the Montana Supreme Court from apply-
ing Montana’s no-aid provision to bar religious schools from
the scholarship program.  For purposes of answering that 
question, we accept the Montana Supreme Court’s interpre-
tation  of  state  law—including  its  determination  that  the 
scholarship  program  provided  impermissible  “aid”  within
the meaning of the Montana Constitution—and we assess 
whether  excluding  religious  schools  and  affected  families
from that program was consistent with the Federal Consti-
tution.2 

—————— 

2 JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR  argues  that  the  Montana  Supreme  Court  “ex-