Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

12 

ESPINOZA v. MONTANA DEPT. OF REVENUE 

ALITO, J., concurring 

2010, 2027.  That amendment was rejected. 

Thus, the no-aid provision’s terms keep it “[t]ethered” to
its original “bias,” and it is not clear at all that the State 
“actually confront[ed]” the provision’s “tawdry past in reen-
acting it.”  Ramos, 590 U. S., at ___ (SOTOMAYOR, J., con-
curring in part) (slip op., at 4).  After all, whereas the no-
aid  provision  had  originally  been foisted  on Montana,  the 
State  readopted  it  voluntarily—“sectarian”  references  in-
cluded.  Whether or not the State did so for any reason that 
could be called legitimate, the convention delegates recog-
nized  that  the  provision  would  “continue  to  mean  and  do 
whatever it does now,” Convention Tr. 2014 (statement of
Delegate  Loendorf ),  and  the  discrimination  in  this  case 
shows that the provision continues to have its originally in-
tended effect.  And even if Montana had done more to ad-
dress  its  no-aid  provision’s  past,  that  would  of  course  do
nothing to resolve the bias inherent in the Blaine Amend-
ments  among  the  17  States,  by  respondents’  count,  that 
have not readopted or amended them since around the turn
of the 20th century.20 

Today’s public schools are quite different from those en-
visioned by Horace Mann, but many parents of many differ-
ent  faiths  still  believe  that  their  local  schools  inculcate  a 
worldview that is antithetical to what they teach at home.
Many have turned to religious schools, at considerable ex-
pense,  or  have  undertaken  the  burden  of  homeschooling. 
The  tax-credit  program  adopted  by  the  Montana  Legisla-

—————— 

20 Ala. Const., Art. XIV, §263 (1901); Ariz. Const., Art. II, §12, Art. IX,
§10  (1912);  Colo.  Const.,  Art. V,  §34,  Art. IX,  §7  (1876);  Del.  Const., 
Art. X, §3 (1897); Ind. Const., Art. I, §6 (1851); Ky. Const. §189 (1891); 
Miss. Const., Art. 8, §208 (1890); Nev. Const., Art. XI, §10 (1880); N. H. 
Const.,  Pt.  II,  Art.  83  (1877);  N. M.  Const.,  Art.  XII,  §3  (1911);  N. D. 
Const.,  Art. VIII,  §152  (1889);  Ohio  Const.,  Art. VI,  §2  (1851);  Okla.
Const.,  Art. II,  §5  (1907);  Ore. Const.,  Art.  I,  §5  (1857);  S. D.  Const., 
Art. VIII,  §16  (1889);  Wis.  Const.,  Art.  I,  §18,  Art. X,  §3  (1848);  Wyo. 
Const., Art. I, §19, Art. VII, §8 (1889).