Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue clarified distinction between ‘religious schools’ and ‘religious use’

Espinoza (2020) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled against Montana Department of Revenue that a state may not exclude families and schools from participating in a student-aid program because of a school’s religious status under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. 

In Espinoza the question was whether a state law that allows for funding for education generally while prohibiting funding for ‘religious schools’ violates the Religion Clauses or the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled for Espinoza in a 5-4 majority decision that the state court’s interpretation of the Montana Constitution violated the U.S. Constitution, which protects the free exercise of religion. The Court decided that the application of the Montana Constitution’s “no-aid” provision to a state program providing tuition assistance to parents who send their children to private schools discriminated against ‘religious schools’ and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them in violation of the Federal Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause which protects people who are religious from being treated unequally, as well as from laws that discriminate based on religion.

In Espinoza the Court also made a distinction between ‘religious [status of] schools’ and ‘religious use’ (i.e. religious education or instruction) but it did not resolve whether a state may exclude families and schools based on the ‘religious use’ to which a student’s aid might be put at a school.

Previously, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) the Court has decided that the Ohio program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even if the vouchers could be used for private, religious schools. However, in Locke v. Davey (2004) the Court has ruled that there was nothing “inherently constitutionally suspect” in the denial of Washington public funding for vocational religious instruction, such as a degree in devotional theology.

In conclusion, Espinoza implies that ‘religious schools’ cannot be excluded from state funding for private schools. The Espinoza decision will likely have significant impact on subsequent rules in the 38 states with Blaine amendments that prohibit taxpayer funding of religious entities in their state constitutions.

By Double S – PKAK

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *