A Key Question Before the Court: Are Charter Schools Public or Private?
If they are public, there is little room for religious instruction, as proposed by the school at the center of the case, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which seeks to open in Oklahoma as the nation's first religious charter school.
But if they are private, as St. Isidore's lawyers will argue, banning a religious group from operating a charter school when other nonprofits are free to do so would be religious discrimination.
If the Supreme Court decides charter schools are private, it would most likely allow St. Isidore to open, and potentially pave the way for religious charter schools in other states.
Charter schools, which were created in the 1990s to give families more options, have long occupied a hybrid space in education.
They are like traditional public schools in many ways because they are paid for by taxpayers and free to attend.
But charter schools are also run by private entities, often nonprofits, and are not zoned, allowing students to attend regardless of their ZIP codes. And unlike at many public schools, their teachers typically are not unionized.
Today, about 3.7 million students attend charter schools, in 44 states and Washington, D.C., representing about 7 percent of the public school sector. But in some cities, like Detroit and Philadelphia, enrollment is far greater, representing a third to half of all students.
Whether they should be classified as public or private may hinge on the specifics of Oklahoma state law.
Justices will most likely consider technical issues, like how charter schools are created. In Oklahoma, a state board must approve new charter schools, a fact that many in the mainstream charter school movement argue places them firmly in the public realm.
'A charter school doesn't exist unless the government gives it reason to open,' said Starlee Coleman, president of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, which opposes allowing religious institutions to operate charter schools.
Lawyers for St. Isidore say that it was created by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa and that it is operated by a board of private citizens. They will argue that St. Isidore is a private school with a government contract.
Any ruling in favor of St. Isidore could have broad implications.
Twelve Republican-leaning states filed an amicus brief in support of St. Isidore's petition, while 18 states, mostly Democratic-leaning, opposed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump escalates attacks on Obama and Clinton as questions swirl about Epstein
'Obama was trying to lead a coup,' Trump said. 'And it was with Hillary Clinton.' Trump's extended digression, which came during a visit with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of the Philippines, was a stark example of his campaign of retribution against an ever-growing list of enemies that has little analogue in American history. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up It even prompted a rare response from Obama's office. Advertisement 'These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,' said Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesperson for Obama. 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.' After Trump's attack on Obama, reports continued to surface about his relationship with Epstein. CNN published photos of Epstein at Trump's 1993 wedding to Marla Maples, the president's second wife. Gabbard's report, which claimed there was a 'treasonous conspiracy' by top Obama officials, contradicted a lengthy study by the Senate Intelligence Committee that was signed by all Republican members of the committee, including Marco Rubio, now the secretary of state. Advertisement The Obama administration never contended that the Russians had manipulated votes; instead, the administration, and the Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee, concluded that Russia mounted a major effort to influence voters. Still, in his remarks Tuesday, Trump claimed that he could have sent Clinton, the former secretary of state and another of his political rivals, to prison but chose not to. He said he would show no such leniency to Obama. 'I let her off the hook, and I'm very happy I did, but it's time to start after what they did to me,' Trump said. 'Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama's been caught directly.' The president then listed even more enemies he wanted his Justice Department to target, including his former FBI director, James Comey and James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, and former President Joe Biden. 'It would be President Obama,' Trump said. 'He started it, and Biden was there with him, and Comey was there, and Clapper, the whole group was there.' 'He's guilty,' he said of Obama. 'This was treason. This was every word you can think of.' Trump's campaign to exact revenge against his perceived enemies has taken many forms. Over the past six months, he has pulled protective details from former colleagues facing death threats from Iran. He has revoked or threatened to revoke the security clearances of Biden, members of his administration and dozens of others. His administration has taken steps to target members of the media seen as unfriendly, taken the hatchet to entire agencies perceived as too liberal, and fired or investigated government workers deemed disloyal. Advertisement The re-examination of the intelligence around the 2016 election began with John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, ordering a review of the agency's tradecraft that went into the intelligence community assessment in December of that year. The review was deeply critical of the Obama administration and the former CIA director, John Brennan. CIA analysts took issue with the speed of the assessment and accused Brennan of allowing an unverified dossier prepared by a former British intelligence officer to influence the assessment. But Brennan has long denied that the so-called Steele dossier had any impact on the assessment, and other former officials said that the analysts working on the report paid no attention to it, maintaining that it was unverifiable rumor. Ratcliffe wrote on social media that the review had shown that the process was corrupt, and then he made a criminal referral to the FBI. Last week, Gabbard issued another report that criticized the findings of the intelligence assessment even more directly. Gabbard's report suggested that in the winter of 2016, intelligence officials under pressure from the White House changed their assessment from one that Russia had failed to mount a significant effort to hack election infrastructure to one that the Kremlin was trying to boost Trump and denigrate Clinton, the Democratic nominee. But Gabbard's report conflated two different intelligence findings. Intelligence officials had concluded that Russia had not engaged in any major effort to hack election systems and change votes. But they also believed that Russia had tried to influence the election in various ways by releasing hacked documents to harm Clinton and sow dissent. Advertisement Gabbard has also called for several Obama officials to face criminal investigation, without naming them. This article originally appeared in
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
President Trump announces 'massive' trade deal with Japan that sets 15% tariff
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump says his economic team has secured a long-sought trade deal with Japan that will lower the steep tariffs the country faced under a looming Aug. 1 deadline. Trump said the U.S. will impose a 15% tariff on Japanese imports under the agreement, which he hailed as "a massive deal" in a July 22 post on Truth Social. The tariff rate would be lower than the 24% tariff Trump had threatened on Japan. "I just signed the largest trade deal in history ‒ I think maybe the largest deal in history ‒ with Japan," Trump said Tuesday night during a White House reception with Republican lawmakers. More: Trump announces trade deal with Philippines and 19% tariff Japan is the fourth largest trading partner of the U.S. behind Canada, Mexico and China. Trump did not disclose the full details of the deal but said Japan would "invest $550 Billion Dollars into the United States," with the U.S. receiving 90% of the profits. He said Japan has also agreed to open its country to trade on products that include vehicles, rice and other agricultural products "This is a very exciting time for the United States of America, and especially for the fact that we will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan," Trump said. Trump officials had suggested being close to a deal with Japan ever since the president in April postponed sweeping reciprocal tariffs on goods from most countries. More: 'No extensions will be granted': Trump vows new tariff deadline is a firm one Since the April delay, the Trump administration has imposed a lower 10% universal tariff on goods from most countries including Japan. But Trump has set an Aug. 1 deadline for the higher tariff rates on some 170 countries to kick in. Speaking early on Wednesday in Tokyo, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said he had received an initial report from his trade negotiator in Washington but declined to comment on the specifics of the negotiation. Trump's Japan announcement came after the president earlier in the day touted a new trade deal with the Philippines that coincided with the country's president, Ferdinand Marcos, visiting the White House. Trump's three other trade deals are with the United Kingdom, Vietnam and Indonesia. Contributing: Reuters Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Senate takes first bipartisan step on government funding ahead of September shutdown cliff
The Senate cleared the first hurdle Tuesday toward passing a government funding bill meant to keep federal cash flowing for several federal agencies beyond September. The 90-8 vote was a major bipartisan overture in cross-party government funding talks strained by the GOP's partisan moves to cut and boost federal cash without Democratic buy-in, while President Donald Trump withholds billions of dollars more that Congress approved in bipartisan votes. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah was the only Republican to vote 'no,' joined by other Democratic Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff of California, Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Peter Welch of Vermont. Welch's fellow Vermonter, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, also opposed moving ahead with consideration of the package. But the bipartisanship is not guaranteed to last. Though Democrats helped overcome Tuesday's hurdle, they aren't committed yet to helping pass the bill, which will at the very least contain funding for the Department and Veterans Affairs and military construction projects. And as lawmakers stare down the Sept. 30 government shutdown cliff in just 10 weeks, fiscal conservatives and the White House are again calling for Republicans to abandon funding negotiations with Democrats. Ahead of the procedural vote Tuesday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer praised the Senate's veterans funding bill as containing 'some important steps to reverse a number of the awful cuts' posed by the Department of Government Efficiency and White House budget director Russ Vought. But Schumer also warned Republicans not to bank on automatically having Democratic votes to pass the bill, adding: 'We will see how the floor process evolves here on the floor. Given Republicans' recent actions undermining bipartisan appropriations, nothing is guaranteed.' The contents of the package are also still in flux. The measure will certainly contain funding for the VA and military construction projects, but Republicans also plan to add largely non-controversial funding for federal agriculture programs, the FDA and operations of Congress. 'I'd like to make it a package of bills, and get as many bills going as we can,' Majority Leader John Thune said in a brief interview, adding that there was a 'discussion' about what to do with more controversial funding for the Justice Department and FBI. Thune could get heat from his own members. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said in an interview he objected to leadership's desire to attach the agriculture and legislative branch spending bills to the pending package, saying he wanted to vote on each measure 'separately' and that the bill funding congressional operations would cost 'too much money.' On the other side of the aisle, Schumer is trying to hone the Democratic government funding strategy after caving to Republicans' strong-arm tactics in March. Democrats haven't settled on what their demands should be heading into September — and there are competing factions split over how hard the party should fight against even bipartisan funding bills in the wake of Republicans green-lighting Trump's $9 billion funding clawbacks package.
