This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case asks whether the Federal Constitution permits the wholesale exclusion of religious schools from scholarship programs.
According to Respondent (Adam G. Unikowski), according to Respondent (Adam G. Unikowski), the respondents contend that Montana may enforce its own constitutional provision that excludes state funding of religious schools.
Background and question before the Court
According to Richard D. Komer, the central legal question is whether the Federal Constitution allows the wholesale exclusion of religious schools from scholarship programs.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Kendra Espinoza)
Petitioners argue that the case focuses on the religious affiliation of schools, not on what the schools do.
According to Richard D. Komer, petitioners maintain that the Constitution does not permit excluding religious schools from scholarship programs.
Respondent (Montana Department of Revenue)
According to Respondent (Adam G. Unikowski), according to Respondent (Adam G. Unikowski), the State of Montana may enact and apply a constitutional provision that keeps its legislature out of funding religious schools.
According to Respondent (Adam G. Unikowski), according to Respondent (Adam G. Unikowski), the coercion aspect present in Trinity Lutheran, which was crucial to that Court's decision, is absent here.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court at 10:05 a.m. on the scheduled date.
Justices asked numerous questions about standing, the nature of the scholarship program, and its consistency with prior cases such as Trinity Lutheran and McDaniel.
- [1] 510ad2ca052ac8a5cb2e-r1-0597122142351827.pdf, p. 2
- [2] 510ad2ca052ac8a5cb2e-r1-0597122142351827.pdf, p. 6
- [3] 510ad2ca052ac8a5cb2e-r1-0597122142351827.pdf, p. 24
- [4] 510ad2ca052ac8a5cb2e-r1-0597122142351827.pdf, p. 28
- [5] 510ad2ca052ac8a5cb2e-r1-0597122142351827.pdf, p. 44
- [6] 510ad2ca052ac8a5cb2e-r1-0597122142351827.pdf, p. 65
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Jeffrey B. Wall, the case highlights the tension between state constitutional provisions that may exclude religious schools and the federal Establishment Clause.
If the program were invalidated on equal‑protection grounds, it would raise broader constitutional concerns.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 510ad2ca052ac8a5cb2e-r1-0597122142351827.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.