Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue Case Study

Introduction

The case raised the issue in a concern of whether the fourteenth Clause of the Equal Protection Amendment and the Formation of the Free Exercise Article during the 1st Amendment, which needed a state to generally allow the available religious neutral scholar aid to other religious school attendants (Lindberg). The Supreme Court decided on the interpretation of Montana's Supreme Court concerning Montana's Blaine Amendment would have important states' implication with the prohibition of the tax-credit scholarship programs in support of religious schools.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Background Facts and Procedures

Kendra Espinoza is one of the petitioners among other mothers with a low income who dropped their application of their children's scholarships to enroll in a Christian school known as Stillwater in Kalispell Montana. The legislature of Montana in 2015 enacted a scholarship program with a tax credit in the provision of a humble tax credit to businesses and those who give donations to secluded and not-for-profit scholarship administrations. Later after the platform was passed, the Montana Department of Returns broadcasted the administrative rule (Rule 1), barring the beneficiaries of these scholarships from using them in religious institutions (Unikowsky). Referring to the provision of the constitutional state that prohibits indirect or direct public aid to the religiously associated educational program.

The Montana Supreme Court in 2018, invalidated a tax program of 2015 that provided a credit of dollar for dollar tax, up to one hundred and fifty-dollar donations to the Organizations of Students Scholarships. Provided private school Students Scholarships and also included religious schools. Justice McKinnon held the program, and while writing for the majority allowed the legislature to pay for the tuition indirectly, therefore impermissibly supported the religious schools in Montana's Blaine Amendment, Section 6 of Article X. As a result of the schools that are receiving the scholarships (Lindberg), the court approved the plaintiffs' request for summary judgment of the determination in the scholarship platform constitution without rule.

My Ruling on Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

In my ruling, I will decide the case in favor of the plaintiffs since, in 2015, Montana council approved a bill allowing tax credits for the people whose children attend religious schools. For instance, the constitution bars support to religious schools. Meaning that the plaintiffs were entitled to the tax credit. Besides, following Espinoza's petition brief support for review, there are 18 states with a similar program that is tax credit grant. In 2015, the Montana parliament formed the scholarship platform at the center of the heated discussions.

I would make the ruling since the plaintiffs were already entitled to up to 150 Dollars grant, which was to be used to school their children. The donated money in support to the grant organization, which is used in the provision of scholarship to the private school attendants, of which most of them in Montana are religious. The donated funds were to be used in private schools; the majority number of private schools are religious-based; hence barring them to use the scholarship is not sensible. All the needy children cannot fit in the few non-religious private institutions. Barring of a religious school scholarship program in violation of the state constitution as argued by the plaintiff in the state Federal Court in 2015, who said they had counted on the scholarship money for their children in Kalispell Christian school in Montana (Eckstein). The institution is one of the many private religious institutions.

Besides, the plaintiff further argued that the provision of the state constitution relied on by the Montana supreme court. Therefore, to overturn the tax-credit platform raised a grave federal constitution concern in which the rule is known as the 'Blaine Amendment,' explaining one among those adopted within the nation in the 19th century to curb aid to funnel student in public school and catholic schools (Howe). Due to the "Blaine Amendment," there is no need for the U.S supreme Federal Court to raid the provisioning rule over them, since the plaintiff assured the justices, in which they should not permit the Montana supreme hide based on the grants to overturn the scholarship platform.

Conclusion

In making a ruling, the judge must be able to observe all the determinant of the case by analyzing the evidence. The judge should also be able to prepare and summarize each testimony of a witness just after the conclusion of a claim. During the hearing the evidence, the judge should be in a position to note down and make observations on the literal records of the proceedings. At the end of the evidence presented, the judge is expected to proceed and draft the accurate sections. A sound judgment also should reflect the judges' understanding of the present state of the law. The judge should be able to support their findings sufficiently with reasons showing how they are not capricious and arbitrary. Therefore, the judge should cite specific examples when possible, for instance, evidence from documents, motive awareness of concealing the truth or telling it. However, the judge should accurately reveal the sort of assumed process they followed during a verdict. In my ruling above, I adhered to these guidelines coming to a conclusion in support of the plaintiffs.

Works Cited

Eckstein, Megan. "Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue: Tax Credits, Religious Schools, and Constitutional Conflict." Montana Law Review Online 79.1 (2018): 3. https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/mlr_online/vol79/iss1/3/

Howe, Amy. "Argument Preview: Justices to Consider Dispute over Tax Credits for Scholarships." SCOTUSblog, 22 Jan. 2020, www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/argument-preview-justices-to-consider-dispute-over-tax-credits-for-scholarships/. Accessed 10 Apr. 2020.

Lindberg, Katy. "PREVIEW; Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue: Does Montana's Blaine Amendment Violate the Free Exercise Clause?" Montana Law Review Online 80.1 (2020): 8. Retrieved on April 10, 2020 from https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1111&context=mlr_online

Unikowsky, Adam K. "Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue." Oyez, 22 Jan. 2020, www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1195. Accessed 10 Apr. 2020.