Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court.

I'm Amy Swearer.

And I'm Giancarlo Conoparo.

And welcome to SCOTUS 101, where we break down what's happening at the Supreme Court, what the justices are up to, and other things related to our favorite branch of government.

Welcome to another episode of SCOTUS 101. Welcome back to the show.

As always, we are delighted to have you join us. Well, as is often the case, the court saves its most

exciting cases for the end of the term, and that rule has held true this week. We have five opinions to talk about. Now, by my

count, we still have eight more to go, so theoretically we could be done next week. But enough about

next week, let's talk about this week. You have five cases, again, including some of the juicy

ones that I know we've all been waiting for.

And without further ado, first up is Espinoza.

So several years ago, Montana created a $150 tax credit that you could get if you donated money to an organization

that then provided scholarships to qualifying students who attended private schools.

Montana has a provision in its constitution, though, that prohibits the state from providing

aid to religious organizations. These provisions are pretty common. Over 30 states have them

in their constitutions, and they're called Blaine amendments after the former speaker of the House, James Blaine, who tried and failed to amend the Constitution to get

such a provision in there. Three mothers who wanted to take advantage of this program to send

their kids to private religious schools filed suit when they were stopped from doing so.

And after the lawsuit, Wynd did its way through the state courts.

The Montana Supreme Court said that the entire program had to be scrapped.

The issue before the court was whether a state violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment

when it invalidates a generally available student aid program simply because this program

...