Question about seeming word error in Mitchell v. Helms

[Volokh, Eugene]

        Near the very end of Souter's dissent in Mitchell v. Helms, 120 S.
Ct. 2530, 2596 (2000), Souter says the following:

                And if this were not enough to prove that no aid in
religious school aid is dead under the plurality's First Amendment, the
point is nailed down in the plurality's attack on the legitimacy of
considering a school's pervasively sectarian character when judging whether
aid to the school is likely to aid its religious mission.

It looks like "to prove that no aid in religious school aid is dead" should
instead read "to prove that the no aid to religious schools principle is
dead", but that requires enough of a rewording that I thought I'd ask others
on the list what they thought.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/20001019/f2199318/attachment.htm