#SCOTUS rules 5-4 that Montana’s exclusion of religious schools from state scholarship program funded by tax credits violates federal Constitution
Here is the 5-4 opinion from Chief Justice Roberts in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue with separate dissents from Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…
Roberts' majority opinion in Espinoza hinges on a provision of the Montana constitution that bars state money from going to religious schools. Roberts says that provision, as applied here, violates the free exercise clause of the U.S. constitution. 
Justice Thomas writes separately in Espinoza to express his long-held view that the federal establishment clause does not apply to the states. Notably, Justice Gorsuch joins Thomas' concurrence.
Justice Alito writes a concurrence to highlight the anti-Catholic origins of state "Blaine amendments" like the one at issue here. He even includes an 1871 political cartoon to show the bigotry toward Catholic schools at the time.
Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor each write separate dissents, totaling 37 pages. Ginsburg (joined by Kagan) says there's no free exercise problem because the decision on review simply eliminated the scholarship program altogether -- meaning the state action is neutral.
Breyer's dissent (joined in part by Kagan) worries that the majority decision may lead to unwarranted "entanglement and conflict" between church and state by, in essence, requiring states to support religious schools if they decide to subsidize any nonpublic education.
And Sotomayor argues that the court should not have decided this case at all, because the scholarship program at issue no longer even exists, having been struck down by the Montana Supreme Court.
