Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue.
The Supreme Court reviewed a Montana program that provided tax credits for donations to organizations awarding scholarships for private school tuition. The Montana Supreme Court invalidated the program, citing a state constitutional provision prohibiting aid to religious schools. The U.S. Supreme Court held that this application violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Federal Constitution.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue.
The Court held that the application of the no-aid provision discriminated against religious schools and families, violating the Free Exercise Clause of the Federal Constitution.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Exercise of Religion is relevant to Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue
The Court held that the application of the no-aid provision discriminated against religious schools and families in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: The application of the no-aid provision discriminated against religious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the Federal Constitution.
-
Why Establishment of Religion is relevant to Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue
The case involves the intersection of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, particularly in the context of state funding for religious schools.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)We have recognized a 'play in the joints' between what the Establishment Clause permits and the Free Exercise Clause compels.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue
The Court exercised its power of judicial review to invalidate the Montana Supreme Court's application of the state constitution under the Federal Constitution.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Montana Supreme Court should have 'disregard[ed]' the no-aid provision and decided this case 'conformably to the [C]onstitution' of the United States.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue that support the summary and concepts above.
The application of the no-aid provision discriminated against religious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.
The Free Exercise Clause 'protects religious observers against unequal treatment' and against 'laws that impose special disabilities on the basis of religious status.'
The Montana Supreme Court had no authority to invalidate the program on the basis of that provision.
