Opinion: Supreme Court Must Not Undermine Public Education in Religious Charter Case
In 2023, Oklahoma's Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, an action that would make it the nation's first-ever religious charter school. It would be governed by Catholic religious doctrine in its syllabus, operations and employment practices. It would use taxpayer dollars to pay for religious instruction. And it could turn away students and staff if their faith or identity conflict with Catholic beliefs.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
Here's the issue: Charter schools were created to be public schools. They are open to all students, from every background, tradition and faith community. They are publicly funded and tuition-free. And they are secular.
That's not an arbitrary distinction – it's a constitutional one, grounded in the law and embedded in charter schools' very design. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause bars the government from promoting or endorsing any religion through public spaces or institutions. This foundational rule has ensured that students of all backgrounds can access public schools. It does not stifle religious expression — the Constitution fully protects this freedom, and religious education is available in other venues. Personally, I was, in fact, educated at Jesuit Catholic schools for my entire academic career.
Parochial education has long been an accepted and important part of the education ecosystem, serving a variety of students and often filling an important need. Religiously affiliated schools have a long history of educating and caring for children who are new to this country and underserved, and supporting families who are overlooked. But promoting the exclusive teachings of a specific religion with public funds in a public school violates a clear constitutional principle.
The issue isn't only a legal matter; it's about the character of public education itself. Muddying the boundary between public and religious institutions would undercut a fundamental commitment made by the nation's public charter schools: that they are accessible to every student. It would undermine legal protections that keep public services available to the public.
Rather than creating more opportunities for America's students, it would constrict opportunities for a high-quality education, especially in states that are hostile toward charters or alternative public school models. Legislative bodies could seek to eliminate funding for all unique school types if the court decision forced them to fund religious schools operating with public dollars. This would curtail or dismantle strong independent schools, 30-year-old public charter schools and schools with unique programs designed for special populations.
Related
As executive director of the DC Charter School Alliance, and a long-time public charter school advocate, I've seen the importance of public charter schools firsthand. Here in the District of Columbia, charter schools serve nearly half of the public school students in the city. Outstanding educators from all walks of life teach a wide range of subjects with enthusiasm and expertise to prepare young people for success. Our students bring to the classroom an incredible range of experiences, including faith traditions. And every student, family and faculty member is welcome. D.C.'s charter schools reflect a core American value: the promise of a high-quality public education for all.
The justices of the Supreme Court face a clear and critical choice: They can bolster that promise, or they can tear it down. If the court allows a religious school to operate with public funds, there is no doubt that it will open the floodgates to other proposals across the country. Taxpayers could be forced to foot the bill for countless new and converted schools, draining resources from an already financially strapped education system. True public charter schools — the ones committed to high standards, positive results and opportunity for all — could bear the cost. And the students who rely on them could suffer.
Public education is one of America's most vital institutions. It offers all children, no matter their background or beliefs, access to free, high-quality learning. Charter schools play an essential role in making that promise real. But allowing a religious school to operate with public funds turns public education into something much more restrictive, dismantling its very foundation.
The court must reaffirm this indisputable truth: Public schools should remain public — and open to all.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
33 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump reshaped the Supreme Court. Now emergency appeals are helping him reshape the government
WASHINGTON (AP) — Six months into his second term, President Donald Trump has gotten almost everything he has wanted from the Supreme Court that he reshaped during his first. The justices, three of whom were appointed by Trump, have cleared the way for stripping legal protections from more than 1 million immigrants, firing thousands of federal employees, ousting transgender members of the military, removing the heads of independent government agencies and more. The legal victories are noteworthy on their own, but how the president is achieving them is remarkable. Administration lawyers are harnessing emergency appeals, which were used sparingly under previous presidencies, to fast-track cases to the Supreme Court, where decisions are often handed down with no explanation. Trump's use of the emergency docket reflects his aggressive approach to governing in his second term, with fewer voices of caution within his administration and the Republican Party. He regularly seeks any possible leverage to advance his agenda, regardless of past practices or tradition. The result is a series of green lights from the nation's highest court without any clarity on how the law should be interpreted in the future. The latest example came Monday, when the court allowed the Trump administration to move forward on a key campaign promise to unwind the Education Department and lay off nearly 1,400 workers. No rationale given by the majority The six conservative justices did not provide a reason for their vote, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissent on behalf of the court's three liberals. 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,' Sotomayor wrote. In an earlier case allowing migrants to be sent to countries other than their own with little or no chance to object, Sotomayor complained that 'the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.' David Warrington, the White House's top lawyer and Trump's former personal attorney, said the president's team works 'around the clock to advance his agenda.' Senior administration officials who declined to be identified while discussing legal strategy said the White House is relying on the emergency docket because political opponents have been so aggressive in seeking temporary restraining orders from lower-ranking judges to halt proposals. Skye Perryman, who leads the Democracy Forward nonprofit that has repeatedly sued the administration, said emergency appeals have been pursued 'prematurely and inappropriately.' 'There is a concern that this Supreme Court is not checking this administration's power grab in the way the American people expect them to and the constitution would mandate,' she said. Trump repeatedly turns to justices for help Almost since Trump took office, the court's emergency docket has been packed with appeals from his administration. For a while, the justices were being asked to weigh in almost once a week as Trump pushed to lift lower court orders slowing his ambitious conservative agenda. The rulings on the court's shadow, or emergency docket, have come in some of the more than 300 lawsuits that have challenged parts of Trump's second-term agenda. Administration officials have harshly criticized lower-court judges who they see as getting in Trump's way. Top policy adviser Stephen Miller has spoken of 'judicial tyranny.' Trump himself called for impeaching U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, which prompted a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. Boasberg has found that members of the administration may be liable for contempt after ignoring his order to turn around planes deporting people under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The administration initially resisted court orders to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador. Yet the Supreme Court has not seemed especially skeptical of the administration's actions, critics have said. 'District judges have recognized this is not normal. What the administration is trying to do is not normal and it has to be stopped,' Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan said on the 'Original Jurisdiction' podcast. 'The Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry and for what, I am not clear.' Final decisions are yet to come The high court has not issued final decisions in any of the cases, which are continuing in lower courts. It's possible, if not likely, that the court eventually will hear appeals in some of these cases and issue final rulings. But by then, even if the court finds a policy illegal, it may be too late, said Alicia Bannon, director of the Judiciary Program at New York University law school's Brennan Center for Justice. 'In a lot of these cases, you can't unring the bell,' Bannon said. Pointing to the Education Department order, she said, 'Once those firings have moved forward, once that department has been effectively obliterated, you can't just, you know, press a button and bring us back to the status quo.' The liberal justices also have pointed to what they see as the damage their colleagues are doing to lower-court judges. 'Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway. But this Court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote last month in her dissent from a decision limiting judges' authority to issue nationwide, or universal, injunctions. The decision to scale back nationwide injunctions came in the administration's emergency appeal of orders blocking Trump's effort to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion said nothing about whether the birthright citizenship policy violates the Constitution. The issue could soon return to the high court; judges are evaluating whether their earlier orders need to be changed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
34 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
US appeals court upholds West Virginia restriction on abortion pill sales
CHARLESTON, (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a lower court's decision to restrict abortion pill sales in West Virginia. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, affirmed a ruling by a U.S. district judge in 2023 despite federal regulators' approval of the abortion pill as a safe and effective medication. Most Republican-controlled states have enacted or adopted abortion bans of some kind, including restricting abortion pills by default, since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade , the 1973 ruling that provided nationwide access to abortion. All have been challenged in court. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Chambers had ruled that the near-total abortion ban signed by then-Republican Gov. Jim Justice in September 2022 took precedence over approvals from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 'For us to once again federalize the issue of abortion without a clear directive from Congress, right on the heels of Dobbs, would leave us one small step short of defiance,' 4th Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for the court. 'One can of course agree or disagree with the Dobbs decision. But that is not the point,' Wilkinson said. 'At a time when the rule of law is under blunt assault, disregarding the Supreme Court is not an option.' West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey, who took office in January, had defended challenges to the abortion law when he served as attorney general. 'Big win out of the 4th Circuit today,' Morrisey said in a statement. GenBioPro Inc., the country's only manufacturer of a generic version of the abortion pill mifepristone, had argued that the state cannot block access to a FDA-approved drug. Chambers had dismissed the majority of GenBioPro's challenges, finding there is 'no disputing that health, medicine, and medical licensure are traditional areas of state authority.' Appeals judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin concurred and dissented in part Tuesday, calling it a 'troubling opinion.' 'Put plainly, this law erects barriers to life-saving healthcare for countless West Virginians in ways not envisioned by Congress,' Benjamin wrote. Not at issue in the appeal was a challenge by GenBioPro concerning a separate West Virginia law that stopped providers from prescribing mifepristone by telehealth. Chambers had allowed that challenge to proceed. The U.S. Supreme Court last year unanimously preserved access to mifepristone , which is used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. in 2023.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal agency shifts stance on transgender discrimination complaints, but hurdles remain
The federal agency responsible for enforcing laws against workplace discrimination will allow some complaints filed by transgender workers to move forward, shifting course from earlier guidance that indefinitely stalled all such cases, according to an email obtained by The Associated Press. The email was sent earlier this month to leaders of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with the subject line 'Hot Topics,' in which Thomas Colclough, director of the agency's Office of Field Programs, announced that if new transgender worker complaints involve 'hiring, discharge or promotion, you are clear to continue processing these charges.' But even those cases will still be subject to higher scrutiny than other types of workplace discrimination cases, requiring approval from President Donald Trump's appointed acting agency head Andrea Lucas, who has said that one of her priorities would be 'defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights.' Since Trump regained office in January, the EEOC has moved away from its prior interpretation of civil rights law, marking a stark contrast to a decade ago when the agency issued a landmark finding that a transgender civilian employee of the U.S. Army had been discriminated against because her employer refused to use her preferred pronouns or allow her to use bathrooms based on her gender identity. Under Lucas's leadership, the EEOC has dropped several lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers. Lucas defended that decision during her June 18 Senate committee confirmation hearing in order to comply with the president's executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes. However, she acknowledged that a 2020 Supreme Court ruling — Bostock v. Clayton County — 'did clearly hold that discriminating against someone on the basis of sex included firing an individual who is transgender or based on their sexual orientation.' Colclough acknowledged in his July 1 email that the EEOC will consider transgender discrimination complaints that 'fall squarely under' the Supreme Court's ruling, such as cases involving hiring, firing and promotion. The email backtracked on an earlier policy, communicated verbally, that de-prioritized all transgender cases. The EEOC declined to comment on the specifics of its latest policy, saying: 'Under federal law, charge inquiries and charges of discrimination made to the EEOC are confidential. Pursuant to Title VII and as statutorily required, the EEOC is, has been, and will continue to accept and investigate charges on all bases protected by law, and to serve those charges to the relevant employer." But even the cases that the EEOC is willing to consider under Bostock must still be reviewed by a senior attorney advisor, and then sent to Lucas for final approval. This heightened review process is not typical for other discrimination charges and reflects the agency's increased oversight for gender identity cases, former EEOC commissioner Chai Feldblum told The AP in a Monday phone interview. 'It is a slight improvement because it will allow certain claims of discrimination to proceed," Feldblum said of the new policy. 'But overall it does not fix a horrific and legally improper situation currently occurring at the EEOC.' Colclough's email did not clarify how long the review process might take, or whether cases that include additional claims, such as harassment or retaliation, would be eligible to proceed, and the EEOC declined to address those questions. "This is not the EEOC being clear to either its own staff or to the public what charges are going to be processed," Feldblum said. 'This is not a panacea." ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Claire Savage, The Associated Press
