Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 91

10 

ESPINOZA v. MONTANA DEPT. OF REVENUE 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

historical analysis is incomplete at best.  For one thing, the 
Court discounts anything beyond the 1850s as failing to “es-
tablish an early American tradition,” ante, at 15, while it-
self relying on examples from around that time, ante, at 14. 
For another, although the States may have had “rich diver-
sity of experience” at the founding, “the story relevant here
is one of consistency.”  Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___ 
(SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 11); see also id., at 
___–___  (slip  op.,  at  12–20)  (chronicling  state  histories). 
The  common  thread  was  that  “those  who  lived  under  the 
laws  and  practices  that  formed  religious  establishments
made  a  considered  decision  that  civil  government  should
not fund ministers and their houses of worship.”  Id., at ___ 
(slip op., at 16).  And as the Court’s recent precedent holds, 
at  least  some  teachers  in  religiously  affiliated  schools are 
ministers  who  inculcate  the  faith.    See  Hosanna-Tabor 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  and  School  v.  EEOC,  565 
U. S. 171, 178, 196 (2012); see also ante, at 3 (GORSUCH, J., 
concurring); ante, at 6, 13 (BREYER, J., dissenting).

The Court further suggests that by abstaining from fund-
ing religious activity, the State is “ ‘suppress[ing]’ ” and “pe-
naliz[ing]” religious activity.  Ante, at 19–20.  But a State’s 
decision not to fund religious activity does not “disfavor re-
ligion; rather, it represents a valid choice to remain secular 
in the face of serious establishment and free exercise con-
cerns.”  Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___ (SOTOMAYOR, J., 
dissenting) (slip op., at 24).  That is, a “legislature’s decision
not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not 
infringe the right.”  Regan v. Taxation With Representation 
of Wash., 461 U. S. 540, 549 (1983). 

Finally, it is no answer to say that this case involves “dis-
crimination.”  Ante, at 11–12.  A “decision to treat entities 
differently based on distinctions that the Religion Clauses 
make relevant does not amount to discrimination.”  Trinity 
Lutheran,  582  U. S.,  at  ___  (SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  dissenting) 
(slip op., at 22).  So too here.