Court Case
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
At issue: Should parents of students in private, religious schools receive financial benefits through a state funding program even though Montana’s state constitution protects against government funding of religion?
BJC says: No — the unique treatment of religion keeps government from controlling the beliefs and practices that religious schools teach. BJC supports laws that prohibit government funding of and interference in religion.
Case Status
The Supreme Court released a 5-4 decision on June 30, 2020, that disregarded the distinctiveness of religion, widening the door for problematic government efforts that would fund religious schools.
BJC supports laws that prohibit government funding of and interference in religion. We filed a friend-of-the-court brief in at the U.S. Supreme Court to defend the law’s distinctive treatment of religion.
The unique treatment of religion keeps government from controlling the beliefs and practices that religious schools teach. In Espinoza, the Court is being asked to require that the government provide financial benefits to religious institutions whenever it does for private secular ones. But, BJC says doing so would harm religious liberty because religious education is fundamentally different.
“States should not have to fund religious schools,” said BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman. “Religion is treated in a unique way in constitutional law, both to avoid its establishment by government and to avoid government interference in its free exercise. This special treatment of religion stems from our country’s deep and abiding commitment to religious liberty for all.”
As in Trinity Lutheran Church (2017), BJC is defending the distinctive treatment of religion in law and countering the false and damaging narrative that misrepresents the prohibition on government-funded religion.
In Espinoza, parents of students who attend private religious schools challenged a state tax credit program that did not include religious schools. The program provided a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for donations to an entity that pays tuition at private schools. The parents’ case went to the Montana Supreme Court, which struck the program, ruling that the state constitution forbids the creation of a tax credit program that supports private religious schools. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether Montana’s decision to restrict such a program violates the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“The Supreme Court has long recognized that government may not directly fund religious exercise,” Hollman said. “So it is neither surprising nor discriminatory that Montana’s constitution, like those in other states, protects religious liberty by avoiding even the indirect funding of religion. No-aid provisions ensure that state funds are preserved for state purposes and not used to advance religion. The Court should reject blanket attacks on no-aid provisions and uphold Montana’s law that preserves public funding for its public schools.”
“We are disappointed that the Court extended its holding in Trinity Lutheran today,” said BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman. “The decision’s high concern for equal treatment of religious schools disregards the distinctiveness of religion in our constitutional order and contradicts the special treatment that religion rightfully receives to keep government from influencing and interfering with it.”
Resources
-
BJC's Amicus Brief
Read BJC’s friend-of-the-court brief for a deeper understanding of our legal reasoning.
-
A Discussion Examining Espinoza
Amanda and Holly examine the troubling Supreme Court ruling that has major implications for funding education and protecting against government-sponsored religion.
-
A Written Explanation
In an article for The Hill, Holly Hollman explains that protecting religious freedom does not require state funding of religion.
Quotes from BJC's Amicus Brief
- “The distinctiveness of religion (not animus toward any particular religion or religion in general) and importance of religious liberty explain its special treatment in our constitutional tradition.”
- “A principle of governmental non-interference in religion, particularly non-interference with internal decisions that affect the faith and mission of a church, is a central theme in the protection of religious liberty.”
- “The attack on Montana’s no-aid provision as a remnant of ‘naked religious bigotry’ … misrepresents a long tradition of non-interference with religion, undermines the complementary nature of religious liberty provisions in our national and state polity, and disregards the distinctiveness of religion.”
- “Petitioners’ demand for a state program for equal funding ignores the distinctiveness of religion and the various ways religious education operates to promote faith formation. It ignores the relationship between support and accountability in public programs and the limits on governmental interference in religion.”
Holly Hollman's Statement in Response to the Ruling
Supreme Court’s Espinoza decision disregards distinctiveness of religion
June 30, 2020
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court widens the door for government efforts that would fund religious schools in its 5-4 decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.
BJC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case that said avoiding government funding of religion is a key protection for religious liberty – the law’s distinct treatment of religion keeps government from interfering in the beliefs and practices of religious schools.
BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman provided the following statement on today’s decision.
“We are disappointed that the Court extended its holding in Trinity Lutheran today. The decision’s high concern for equal treatment of religious schools disregards the distinctiveness of religion in our constitutional order and contradicts the special treatment that religion rightfully receives to keep government from influencing and interfering with it.
In a shell game that focuses on preventing discrimination based on religious status, the Court fails to recognize Montana’s legitimate interest in protecting religious freedom by avoiding funding religious education.
Though religious schools and some parents who choose them in states that have voucher programs will view today’s decision as a win, they may eventually see that it is a pyrrhic victory. The more that religious schools are treated just like all other private schools, the harder it is to justify and defend the special accommodations they receive, including in their hiring and firing practices, admission policies and curriculum choices.”
BJC’s brief was written with Dr. Steven Green, a professor of law at Willamette University and the nation’s leading expert on religious liberty and state constitutions.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; the General Synod of the United Church of Christ; and the Rev. Dr. J. Herbert Nelson II, as Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), joined BJC’s brief.