Supreme Court sidesteps major ruling on religious public charter schools
The decision by the evenly divided court means that a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that said the proposal to launch St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School violates both the federal Constitution and state law remains in place.
As there was no majority, the court did not issue a written decision, and the case sets no nationwide precedent on the contentious legal question of whether religious schools must be able to participate in taxpayer-funded state charter school programs.
A key factor in the outcome was that conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who would have been the deciding vote, did not participate in the case. She did not explain why, but it is likely because of her ties with Notre Dame Law School. The law school's religious liberty clinic represents the charter school.
The court will likely be asked to weigh in on the issue in future cases.
St Isidore would have operated online statewide with a remit to promote the Catholic faith.
The case highlights tensions within the Constitution's First Amendment; one provision, the Establishment Clause, prohibits state endorsement of religion or preference for one religion over another, while another, the Free Exercise Clause, bars religious discrimination.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court had cited the state's interest in steering clear of Establishment Clause violations as a reason not to allow the proposal submitted by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to move forward.
A state board approved the proposal for St. Isidore in June 2023 despite concerns about its religious nature, prompting Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond to file suit.
The case saw Drummond on the opposite side to fellow Republicans in the state who backed the idea, but he prevailed at the Oklahoma Supreme Court the following year.
The Supreme Court, when Barrett is participating, has a 6-3 conservative majority that often backs religious rights. In recent years it has repeatedly strengthened the Free Exercise Clause in cases brought by conservative religious liberty activists, sometimes at the expense of the Establishment Clause. Some conservatives have long complained that the common understanding that the Establishment Clause requires strict separation of church and state is incorrect.
Lawyers representing the school and the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board sought to portray the dispute as similar to a series of recent rulings in which the court has said that under the Free Exercise Clause states cannot bar religious groups from government programs that are open to everyone else.
The push for religious public charter schools dovetails with the school choice movement, which supports parents using taxpayer funds to send their children to private school. Public school advocates see both efforts as broad assaults on traditional public schools.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
25 minutes ago
- NBC News
Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down state's 1849 near-total abortion ban
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday formally struck down an abortion ban from 1849 that had technically retaken effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights. In a 4-3 decision that came down across ideological lines, the court's liberal majority affirmed a lower court ruling that overturned the 176-year-old ban and left in place a more recent law in Wisconsin allowing most abortions until about the 20th week of pregnancy. "We conclude that comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years regulating in detail the 'who, what, where, when, and how' of abortion so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion," liberal justice Rebecca wrote in the majority opinion. "Accordingly, we hold that the legislature impliedly repealed [the 1849 ban] to abortion, and that [that law] therefore does not ban abortion in the State of Wisconsin." The ruling is a win for abortion rights activists the battleground state, where Democrats had put the issue at the forefront of many statewide elections — including two races in 2023 and 2025 that recalibrated the state Supreme Court's ideological balance — in the years since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The state's 1849 law — enacted the year after Wisconsin was granted statehood — banned abortion in almost all cases by making performing an abortion a felony. Under the law, doctors who perform the procedure technically faced up to six years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines. The law included an exception for abortion care only to save the life of the woman, but not for her health or for rape or incest. As was the case in many states with similar older laws, or newer so-called trigger laws, the ban technically snapped back into effect almost immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down Roe v. Wade. In short order, the decision prompted Planned Parenthood's Wisconsin operations to suspend abortion services in the state. But a series of legal developments unfolded shortly thereafter, which ultimately ended with the question of the law's future before the state Supreme Court. Shortly after the Roe decision, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul, both Democrats, filed a suit arguing that the law had been effectively deemed invalid by more recent, more lenient abortion restriction legislation in the state. Evers and Kaul said at that time, in 2022, that they wouldn't enforce the law. Both won re-election later that year and have maintained their promise. But a state judge ruled on the case in July 2023, declaring that the 1849 law did not apply to consensual medical abortions — (the judge in that case found that the original law intended to outlaw attacks on women that were intended as attempts to kill her unborn child) — prompting abortion providers to resume care in the state in September 2023. The district attorney of conservative Sheboygan County, Joel Urmanski, backed by abortion opponents and other Republican attorneys, appealed that ruling, arguing that the 1849 ban should remain the law of the land, eventually elevating the case to the state Supreme Court. Meanwhile, in a separate case, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin filed a lawsuit in February asking the state Supreme Court to decide on the question of whether a constitutional right to abortion care exists in the state. Arguments haven't been scheduled. But part of Wednesday's decision could well forecast how judges decide on that case. The new decision is the latest consequence of liberals having regained the majority of the technically nonpartisan court for the first time in 15 years in a bitter and expensive 2023 election that ended with progressive Janet Protasiewicz's victory. The race was largely defined by Protasiewicz's support for abortion rights and opposition to the state's heavily gerrymandered legislative maps. Both issues quickly came before the court following the election, both of which ended with victories for the liberal parties in the cases. The issue of abortion played a prominent role in this year's state Supreme Court race as well: On that ended with a Susan Crawford win, allowing liberals to maintain their narrow majority. Crawford will be sworn in next month and did not participate in Wednesday's decision. The issue could also animate yet another race for a seat on the high court next year. Conservative justice Rebecca Bradley has announced she won't run for another, triggering what promises to be another expensive and contentious race. State Supreme Court elections are scheduled in Wisconsin each year from 2026 to 2030.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
No, British trans people aren't at risk of ‘genocide'
The Supreme Court judgment on the definition of a woman on 16 April restored a degree of sanity to a world that was in danger of going mad. Even Keir Starmer now knows that a woman is a matter of biology rather than ideology. Can somebody please tell the Americans? Or, more precisely, those progressive types over the pond who like to concern themselves with other people's business. The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security is an American non-profit organisation that started out to address concerns about the situation in Iraq in the wake of Isis. The institute claims to connect 'the global grassroots with the tools of genocide prevention', and generally to do a bit of good in the world. How effective their campaigns might be in a world where aggression remains rife is for others to judge. Their latest red flag alert, however, homed in on the United Kingdom and, in particular, the experiences of transgender and intersex people. They saw 'evidence of genocidal intent and actions targeting these communities'. According to them, 'this hostile environment is a subtle, pernicious and clear attempt to eradicate transgender and intersex people from British life.' The hyperbole is so far from my experiences as a trans person that it is ridiculous, and such deluded campaigners from afar should merit no further discussion. What bothers me more are people closer to home who ought to know better. Last week, Victoria McCloud – a former judge, who also happens to be trans – announced: I now see it as my sad duty to make an evidence-based report to Genocide Watch and The Lemkin Institute requesting investigation into the systematic oppression of the trans community of the UK. Perhaps we now know why the Americans suddenly poked their noses in? And that wasn't a one-off. The BBC recently reported McCloud's fear that 'someone's going to get killed' because of the Supreme Court ruling. My view of the situation is rather more mundane. Could it be that some people don't like the judgment and fear being called to account for their actions? It was never right for male transitioners to assume that they could co-opt themselves into the rights of women simply by uttering the magic words 'I identify as a woman'. We now live in a saner – and better – world where everybody knows that other people's rights matter too. McCloud needs to get over it. My fear is the genuinely vulnerable will be put at risk, not from some genocidal mob but from fear itself. As trans people, we are told regularly about that 'systematic oppression'. When there is power in being a victim, claims of persecution can attract benefits and rewards. For over a decade, the trans community has drawn in vulnerable youngsters with promises that can never be delivered. Now I sense that the carnival is moving on: the Cass Review put the brakes on the chemical castration of children; the Supreme Court gave women the confidence to object to people they perceived to be men in their spaces; and Pride has lost its grip on our public institutions – at least in councils run by Reform UK. But while society moves on, some youngsters risk being left to flounder. Some never experienced puberty, others were led to believe that they were the opposite sex at unknown cost to their psychological development. Rather more were told that they had a gender identity that set them apart from mere muggles. Life might be far more complicated for them in the coming years and decades. They need to be helped to focus on the things that really matter – building committed relationships, finding productive employment, and taking up their place in society. It helps nobody to ruminate on the fiction that they are hated for claiming a transgender identity. The reality is that few people even care. The world of their future will have its challenges, but genocidal mobs trying to eradicate trans people from the UK are hardly likely to feature – whatever a former judge might like to believe.
Spectator
4 hours ago
- Spectator
Kneecap and Bob Vylan shouldn't be prosecuted
So here's the question I've been wrestling with since Bob Vylan chanted 'Death, death to the IDF' at Glastonbury at the weekend. Is Bob Vylan a 'he' or a 'they'? I don't mean a they/them, although that might be the case. I mean is Bob Vylan a person or a band? I keep seeing Bob Vylan referred to as 'him', including by the BBC, but a cursory Google search reveals that they are in fact a punk rap duo, with neither performer actually named Bob. Is the band's name supposed to be a play on Bob Dylan? And if they're embracing the word 'vylan', presumably a synonym for 'villain', they can't really complain about being prosecuted for their on-stage antics. They are self-proclaimed outlaws and to have this confirmed by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service will no doubt enhance their bad boy image, in much the same way that Kneecap, the Northern Irish republican band, are no doubt absolutely delighted that one of their members is being prosecuted under the Terrorism Act. Should we indulge Bob Vylan in this way? My north star here is the Brandenburg Test, which was established in the US Supreme Court case of Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969). This was a First Amendment challenge to the prosecution of a member oftheKu Klux Klan called Clarence Brandenburg for threatening the President, Congress and the Supreme Court with violent reprisals if they continued 'to suppress the white Caucasian race'. The Supreme Court found for Brandenburg on the grounds that providing speech isn't 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action' it is protected. It seems clear that calling for the death of the IDF, while clearly abhorrent, is not likely to produce imminent lawless action. Incidentally, the same applies to Lucy Connolly, the wife of a former Tory councillor and mother of one who was sentenced to 31 months in jail for a single tweet about burning down asylum hotels. Given that she didn't name a particular hotel and added the caveat 'for all I care', her post wasn't likely to incite imminent lawless action either. Nevertheless, could Bob Vylan be prosecuted under UK law, a question currently being considered by Avon and Somerset Police? One suggestion is they may be guilty of an offence under the Public Order Act 1986: intending to stir up racial hatred, which is what Lucy Connolly was prosecuted for. In their defence, Vylan could argue that the IDF is a military organisation, not a racial group, and Lucy Connolly could have made a similar argument about asylum seekers if she had pleaded not guilty – they're not a distinct racial group and therefore she wasn't being 'racist'. But, interestingly, Lady Hale ruled in R vs Rogers (2007) that, for the purposes of deciding whether an offence is 'racially aggravated', the definition of 'racial group' included 'foreigners', even if that group contains people of many different ethnicities. I think the prosecution in Lucy's case would have argued that Lady Hale's definition of 'racial group' applies to the 'stirring up' offence, not just to racially aggravated offences, but it would be hard to run a similar argument in the prosecution of Bob Vylan. While I think the punk rap duo will probably escape prosecution, I'm not so confident about Kneecap. They, too, are being investigated by Avon and Somerset Police for their behaviour at Glastonbury over the weekend. The incident in question was the band calling on their fans to riot outside Westminster Magistrate's Court where the lead singer, Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, is due to go on trial for allegedly displaying the flag of Hezbollah, a proscribed terrorist organisation. That could be another offence under the Public Order Act, namely inciting a riot. On the other hand, prosecuting a person for that offence requires the consent of the Attorney General, and Lord Hermer may withhold it. What Kneecap said last week comes closer to failing the Brandenburg Test. They weren't just inciting riot in general, but asking their fans to riot at a particular time and place. Under Brandenburg, inciting imminent lawless action isn't sufficient; it has to be likely to take place as a result of the speech in question. Is it probable that Kneecap's fans will riot outside Westminster Magistrate's Court when the lead singer goes on trial? Given that their fans are mainly middle-class soy boys who would run a mile from violent disorder, that seems unlikely. And to be fair, the band did insist afterwards that they were 'only joking'. Lucy Connolly deleted her unpleasant tweet and apologised for it, but the Attorney General, who also had to sign off on her prosecution, extended no such latitude to her. Overall, my position is clear. Bob Vylan and Kneecap should not be prosecuted for their remarks at Glastonbury and Lucy Connolly should be given a pardon and set free. But to bang her up for over two-and-a-half years and do nothing about these posing pop stars does seem like another example of two-tier justice.
