Justice Souter's dissenting opinion presented the voucher program as using the tax payers for religious and secular instruction and card to the verdict of a similar case. "Everson v. Board of Education" decided that no tax could be used to support religious means. Because Ohio's school voucher program offered aid to those who wished to attend religious private schools, it directly violated "Everson". Furthermore, allowing vouchers to be used with religious schooling advanced secular learning and institutions. Souter expresses that ignoring the ruling of "Everson" ignored the importance of neutrality and private choice. Moreover, disregarding "Everson" promoted a new way of thinking that held government aid as insignificant in constitutional grounds. He commented on the voucher money that was going to religious schools as a reflection of free choice by families: "The 96.6% reflects, instead the fact that too few nonreligious school desks are available and few, but religious schools can afford to accept more than a handful of voucher students... For the overwhelming number of children in the voucher scheme, the only alternative to the public schools is religious." Souter strongly voiced his denunciation on the fact that the decision undermined the point of prohibiting religious establishments. He claimed that it was all to save religion from its own corruption, but participation in the program depended on adopting rules that might come in forms of religious discrimination.