Every Supreme Court case tells a story. Both sides vie to persuade the justices — and, in big cases, the public as well — to see the issues through one particular narrative lens. Heading into last week’s argument on whether Montana was obliged by the federal Constitution to keep subsidizing religious-school tuition under a scholarship program that violated the state Constitution, it was easy to see which story line was winning. “School Choice Battle May Boost Religious Freedom” was the headline on USA Today’s preview of the argument.

That is indeed the narrative put forward by lawyers for the school-choice movement, which seeks to use this case to break through the barriers that in many states have prevented parents from using school tuition vouchers for parochial school tuition. The libertarian Institute for Justice, long a leading proponent of vouchers, is framing its appeal, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, as a case about religious freedom. (It’s worth noting that this is not a religion case brought by the religious right; conservative religious groups, along with the Trump administration, are riding the Institute for Justice’s libertarian coattails in a symbiosis of convenience.)

The state, defending its high court’s decision to shut down the scholarship program for all private schools, secular and religious, has no correspondingly snappy one-liner to offer. It argues that religious freedom is enhanced rather than threatened by preventing the flow of public money to religious institutions. That argument gained no traction last week with a Supreme Court majority determined to lower the constitutional barrier between church and state. That this odd case is a glaringly defective vehicle for reaching that goal only shows the depth of the majority’s determination.

The case is also a perfect vehicle for showing something else: the contradiction at the heart of the religious claims being pressed on increasingly receptive federal courts. Those making these claims say that religion and nonreligion must be treated equally. “The rule is religious neutrality,” Richard D. Komer, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, told the justices. So if parents are able use publicly financed scholarships for secular private school tuition, this argument goes, there should be no difference when it comes to religious school tuition.