Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 74.0

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

13 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Congregationalist minister, the Roman Catholic priest re-
sponsible for Catholic schools in the Diocese of Great Falls, 
a Methodist pastor, a Presbyterian minister, and the Mon-
tana Catholic Conference, among others).

In an effort to downplay this risk and further distinguish
this case from Locke, the majority contends that “Montana’s 
Constitution does not zero in on any particular ‘essentially 
religious’ course of instruction.”  Ante, at 13 (quoting Locke, 
540 U. S., at 721).  But this is not a facial challenge to the 
no-aid provision.  See Reply Brief 8.  As applied, the provi-
sion affects only a scholarship program that, in effect, uses
taxpayer funds to help pay for student tuition at religious 
schools.  We  have  long  recognized  that  unrestricted  cash
payments of this kind raise special establishment concerns. 
Cf. Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U. S. 793, 818–819 (2000) (plu-
rality opinion); see id., at 848–849 (O’Connor, J., concurring 
in judgment).  And for good reason: The subsidy petitioners 
demand would go to pay for, among other things, the sala-
ries of teachers and administrators who have been found in 
at least some instances to so “personify [the] beliefs” of the 
churches  that  employ  them  that  they  are  quite  literally
“ministers”  within  the  meaning  of  the  First  Amendment. 
Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U. S., at 188. 

If, for 250 years, we have drawn a line at forcing taxpay-
ers to pay the salaries of those who teach their faith from 
the pulpit, I do not see how we can today require Montana
to  adopt  a  different  view  respecting  those  who  teach  it in 
the classroom. 

II 

In reaching its conclusion that the Free Exercise Clause 
requires  Montana  to  allow  petitioners  to  use  taxpayer- 
supported scholarships to pay for their children’s religious 
education,  the  majority  makes  several  doctrinal  innova-
tions that, in my view, are misguided and threaten adverse 
consequences.