Some Supreme Court opinions are weightier for moral and historical purposes rather than for controlling legal precedent. In a key Supreme Court case upholding a Montana school-choice program, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion of particular moral and historical weight.
First, Alito joined, in full, the main majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts. It held that a state-sanctioned (and indirectly state-financed) scholarship program can be used by families to send their children to faith-based schools as well as ones without any faith affiliation. To deny that option, Roberts wrote, would be to discriminate unconstitutionally against people and institutions of faith in general.
Recommended Stories
Print subscriber? Click here to login/register your account
Digital subscriber? Click here to login/register your account.