I called up Slate's Mark Joseph Stern the other day.

To talk about this Supreme Court case, he just can't stop thinking about.

I was delighted that you asked to talk about this one because it's so important and just

got drowned out by impeachment stuff.

Mark was there for oral arguments in this case last week.

He says John Roberts was remarkably chipper that morning, considering he had wrapped up

his duties in the Senate just a few hours beforehand.

And impeachment stuff is obviously really important too, but like this is the front line of

separation of tuition state stuff right now.

Like this is it.

And in a more normal political time, I think this case would be perceived as a blockbuster.

This case, it's about whether Montana can avoid funneling taxpayer money to religious schools.

The details are a little complicated here.

We'll get to that.

Mark says what made this case interesting to him is how the old ideas about separating

church and state are getting reinterpreted to focus on discrimination.

What the plaintiffs want to fight about here is a single article in Montana's state

constitution, a provision that restricts funding for religious schools.

Dozens of states have provisions like this.

They're called Blaine Amendments.

A Blaine Amendment is this provision of a state constitution that bars the state from

providing any public funds to religious schools or religious institutions.

...