The U.S. Supreme Court case Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 2019 revolved around a tax-credit scholarship program in Montana that provided tuition assistance to parents who send their children to private schools, including religious ones. The Montana Supreme Court invalidated the program because it violated the state constitution's prohibition against aid to any church or its affiliates (known as a "no-aid" provision). However, three mothers whose children attended religious schools challenged this decision and took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2020, in a 5-4 ruling written by Chief Justice Roberts, the court held that if a state decides to subsidize private education it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religiously affiliated; doing so violates free exercise rights protected under First Amendment of Federal Constitution. This landmark decision effectively made it unconstitutional for states with “no-aid” provisions in their constitutions to exclude religious schools from student aid programs.

In the dissenting opinion for Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, argued that there was no constitutional violation because all private schools in Montana were treated equally regardless of religious affiliation. They contended that since the tax-credit program was struck down entirely and did not exist at the time of their decision, there could be no discrimination against religious schools as claimed by plaintiffs. Meanwhile, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer each wrote separate dissents. Sotomayor emphasized that this case should have been dismissed due to lack of standing while Breyer expressed concern about how this ruling might blur the line between church-state separation in future cases involving public funding for religious institutions.