Kalispell parents Kendra Espinoza and Jeri Anderson and their children returned home from Washington, D.C., a bit tired, but optimistic, after attending United States Supreme Court arguments Jan. 22 in a case whose outcome could lead to significant shifts in school funding.

The Supreme Court decision on whether or not invalidating a religiously neutral student-aid program violates the U.S. Constitution’s religion clauses or equal protection clause are expected by the end of June.

The case, Espinoza versus the Montana Department of Revenue, originated as a December 2015 lawsuit. In addition to Espinoza and Anderson, Bigfork parent Jaime Schaefer also is a petitioner in the case. The three parents rely on scholarships to help cover tuition for their children to attend Stillwater Christian School in Kalispell.

The 2015 lawsuit came at a time when the Montana Legislature passed an unprecedented law providing a tax credit, up to $150, for donors supporting scholarships for students to attend private schools. The majority of private schools in Montana are religiously affiliated. Most families receiving scholarships chose to attend religious schools.

The lawsuit was filed not long after the Montana Department of Revenue issued an administrative rule restricting tax-credit eligibility to scholarships for non-religious, private schools. The state contended that allowing those tax credits to incentivize donations for scholarships that could go to religious schools would violate the Montana Constitution’s prohibitions on funding religious organizations based on the state’s “no-aid to sectarian schools” provision.

The parents contended this was a violation of their religious freedom, specifically the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise, Equal Protection and Establishment clauses.

In December 2018, the Montana Supreme Court reversed a Flathead District Court ruling in favor of the three parents and invalidated the entire tax-credit scholarship program.

In June 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would review the state court ruling.

Espinoza and Anderson met with the Daily Inter Lake on Monday to talk about the experience of being at the Supreme Court, as a follow-up to an August 2019 interview.

With all the attention the case has garnered, The Institute of Justice, a Virginia-based Libertarian law firm representing the parents, hired people to arrive the night before and wait in line on behalf of the families in order to secure courtroom seats, which are available on a first-come-first-served basis.

“They were there at 6 p.m. and there were already 15 people ahead of them,” Espinoza said.

By the time the two families arrived around 7 a.m. to hear the 10 a.m. arguments, there was quite a crowd. The line wound around the Supreme Court Front Plaza, according to Anderson.

Arguments lasted 1 hour, 2 minutes and 38 seconds. The Supreme Court holds 70 to 80 arguments a year.

Once inside, the families took their seats in the closely guarded courtroom.

The audience was silent, the tension and excitement in the air shifting when different justices spoke.

“It was an intense, an intense, surreal moment,” Anderson said.

Arguments are an opportunity for justices to ask attorneys questions and for attorneys to “highlight arguments that they view as particularly important,” according to supremecourt.gov. Since Espinoza and Anderson have been involved in the case for years, it wasn’t difficult to follow arguments they have since revisited through transcripts and audio to pick up on details they missed in the excitement.

“It was almost like you could feel — palpably feel — the tension in the room change a couple of times,” Espinoza said.

“We felt at the end of everything that we really had five justices on our side, four for sure,” she added.

According to a Jan. 22 Associated Press article, the court was “sharply divided along ideological lines in arguments” over the “provision in Montana’s constitution that bars state aid to religious schools.”

“For us, the argument was why should we be excluded from accessing that scholarship program because our kids go to a religious school as opposed to a secular school,” Espinoza said. “If the program is there and it’s available to anybody and then they shut down the program so that to make sure that nobody of religious faith or background gets it — that’s discrimination and we’re going to fight that.”

When it was over, the families said they were greeted outside by a cheering crowd of students dressed in yellow and holding signs in support of National School Week, which runs through Feb. 1.

“It isn’t an issue of us siphoning funds off public school,” Espinoza said, noting that she still pays property taxes that go to public schools and is not requesting to reduce her tax liability. “It is privately funded [money going] into a private scholarship organization. The other issue is the money doesn’t go directly to the schools. It goes to the parents, who then decide where they want their kids to go to school...”

Public school advocates, however, fear if the court rules in favor of the parents, it will begin the erosion of public school funding as it currently exists and the principle of separation of church and state.

One of those advocates is The American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, who believes the case could undermine both public education and religious freedom. The American Federation of Teachers is the nation’s second largest teacher’s labor union.

“Make no mistake, if a majority of the justices side with the petitioners, the Supreme Court will be responsible for unleashing a virtual earthquake in this country that threatens both religious liberty and public education. It would turn more than two centuries of American history and our understanding of the Constitution and religious liberty on their head, and mandate public taxpayer support for religious schools,” Weingarten said in a press release.

The Institute of Justice, which focuses on school choice cases, initially reached out to the parents because of their need for financial assistance.

Espinoza is a single mother with two daughters, Naomi and Sarah, in the eighth and sixth grades at Stillwater Christian School.

“I work two jobs. And I’ve been working at times three jobs, but there’s only so much you can do — only so many hours in a day and I still have to be a mom. I’m willing to work hard to give my kids a good education, but if there’s programs like this that could help me with that little bit of difference and we’re excluded from accessing it, then that’s completely unfair,” Espinoza said, later adding, “I believe that the private schools turn out better kids than the public schools — on less money.”

Anderson is a single mother of daughter Emma, a sixth-grader at Stillwater.

“I think as a parent I have the right to choose what school is best for my child. I attended public school, so I have nothing ill to say about public school, but I just feel by having her where she is, Emma is getting the values we’re trying to instill at home, and she’s challenged, and it’s just that spiritual environment she’s in that’s helping mold her and shape her for the future. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt she’s in the absolute best place for her,” Anderson said, and Espinoza agreed.

Both parents want their children to attend the private Christian school through 12th grade despite the financial hardship.

“It’s still a struggle; it’s always going to be a struggle,” Anderson said. “Every year it’s a step out in faith that she’ll remain for one more year.”

In the months between the case being added to the nation’s highest federal court docket, to the time they walked up the Supreme Court steps to flying home — interview, press conference and speaking engagement requests have poured in.

For Espinoza, it is time-consuming and she’s received both positive and “ugly” messages, but she said it’s worth it if she can advocate for other families who want to send their children to private schools, but can’t afford it.

“I don’t think I’d change it. If I’d known from the beginning I probably would have been too scared to move forward with it. Now looking back I wouldn’t change anything because it’s been an educational experience for my kids and it’s allowed me to see, really, how laws and policies are made and kind of have more courage to stand up for something that’s right and not be afraid,” Espinoza said. “And I feel God has said for such a time as this, this is where you’re meant to be. This is what I’ve been asked to do and we rose up and did it.”

Reporter Hilary Matheson may be reached at 758-4431 or hmatheson@dailyinterlake.com.