The full reach of the U.S. Supreme court's 2020 ruling in "Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue" has yet to be seen, but it has the potential to reshape the school-choice landscape. The ruling, which prohibited Montana from excluding students at religious schools from a tax-credit scholarship program, will figure prominently in many other cases in the months and years to come. The authors see four kinds of organizations or individuals that might pursue challenges to school funding laws and amendments: (1) Faith-based schools that have been denied the right to participate in choice programs because of their religious affiliations; (2) Religious organizations that want to run a charter school but on a nonsectarian basis; (3) Religious organizations that want to run explicitly religious charter schools; and (4) Individuals who argue that government funding of public schools is an "otherwise available benefit" that should also support vouchers to attend a religious school. The extent of "Espinoza's" influence will depend on what happens when the decision fully confronts the court's jurisprudence on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.