Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Case name	Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Citation	591 U.S. ___ (2020)
Decided	June 30, 2020
Docket	No. 18-1195
Majority	Roberts
Joinmajority	Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
Concurrence	Alito (in part), Thomas (in part)
Dissent	Breyer
Joindissent	Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg
Laws	Montana Constitution, Montana Code Annotated, U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue was a 2020 United States Supreme Court decision addressing whether a state rule excluding religious schools from a generally available tuition‑assistance program violates the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution. The case involved plaintiffs from Montana who challenged a Montana Department of Revenue rule that interpreted the Montana Constitution's Blaine Amendment-era provision to bar vouchers for religious elementary and secondary schools. The Court's ruling narrowed the scope of state constitutional provisions that disqualify religious institutions from public benefits, affecting litigation across multiple states and prompting responses from advocacy organizations.

Background

In the late 2010s, Montana enacted a tax credit scholarship program administered by the Montana Department of Revenue and implemented through nonprofit scholarship organizations modeled on programs in Arizona, Ohio, and Florida. Parents including parents of children from Great Falls, Montana sought grants to attend Great Falls Public Schools-associated private institutions, including St. James Catholic School (Great Falls, Montana) and other parochial schools. The Department adopted a rule invoking the Montana Constitution's 1889 provision—often described as a Blaine Amendment—originally influenced by 19th‑century debates involving figures like James G. Blaine and contested in cases such as Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer and Lemon v. Kurtzman. Montana courts, including the Montana Supreme Court, invalidated scholarships to religious schools under that provision, prompting appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

Legal questions

The central legal questions were whether state action that disqualifies religious schools from a generally available public benefit program violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Additional issues included whether the Court should apply precedent from Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer and whether facially neutral state constitutional provisions rooted in Blaine Amendment text can justify exclusions based on religious status. Parties and amici debated the applicability of doctrines from Employment Division v. Smith, Locke v. Davey, and Lemon v. Kurtzman.

Supreme Court decision

In a 5–4 decision delivered on June 30, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Montana's denial of tax-credit scholarships to families who chose religious schools violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Opinion of the Court, authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., applied reasoning consistent with the Court's recent Free Exercise jurisprudence in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District-era approaches. The Court did not overturn all precedents regarding church‑state entanglement but rejected the Montana Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constitutional provision as a valid basis for discrimination against religious institutions.

Opinions of the Court

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, and Brett M. Kavanaugh. The majority emphasized that laws excluding religious entities from generally available public benefits because of their religious character constitute discrimination under the Free Exercise Clause, citing Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer and distinguishing Locke v. Davey. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed an opinion concurring in part, addressing the treatment of religious status and historical context including Blaine Amendments. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion arguing for a broader reevaluation of precedents about governmental hostility to religion. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote the principal dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, contending that the Court's decision failed to respect state constitutions and longstanding limits on funding religious instruction.

Impact and subsequent developments

The decision prompted reexamination of state constitutions containing Blaine Amendment provisions in states such as Nebraska, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Iowa, and Colorado, and affected ongoing disputes over school choice programs in Arizona, Ohio, Florida, and Vermont. Legal scholars compared the ruling to precedents like Lemon v. Kurtzman and reactions from organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, People for the American Way, and Alliance Defending Freedom. State legislatures and attorneys general from jurisdictions including California, New York, and Montana revised guidance and considered new statutory approaches to accommodate the Court's framework while addressing concerns about religious instruction and anti‑discrimination protections.

Litigation and reactions

Following the decision, litigants and advocacy groups filed suits in state and federal courts invoking Espinoza's reasoning to challenge prohibitions on vouchers for faith-based institutions and to defend broadly available benefits for religious organizations, with cases reaching appellate courts in circuits including the Ninth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit. State officials varied in response: some amended scholarship program rules to include religious schools, while others defended restrictions citing state constitutional text and state judicial precedents. Public figures and institutions such as the National Education Association, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and civil rights groups issued statements and policy recommendations, and legislatures in several states proposed amendments to scholarship statutes and tax-credit frameworks to conform to the decision. Category:United States Supreme Court cases