
Supreme Court deadlocks 4-4 on nation's first religious charter school
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 school.
The one-page decision did not say how each justice voted. During oral arguments last month, most of the court's conservatives indicated support for the school while liberals expressed concern. At least one conservative is likely to have sided with the liberals, most likely Chief Justice John Roberts.
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.
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 of 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
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democratic FCC commissioner blasts Paramount settlement with Trump as 'desperate move'
(Reuters) -A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission called Paramount's $16 million settlement to resolve a lawsuit filed by U.S. President Donald Trump over a CBS News' 60 Minutes interview broadcast with rival Kamala Harris "a desperate move" to secure approval of a merger. Paramount needs approval from the FCC for an $8.4-billion merger with Skydance Media. FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez said the settlement over an entirely "meritless" lawsuit "now casts a long shadow over the integrity of the transaction pending before the FCC" and "marks a dangerous precedent for the First Amendment." Sign in to access your portfolio


CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
Abortion rights Supreme Court Planned Parenthood FacebookTweetLink The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother 'intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child.' It was in effect until 1973, when the US Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the US Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that the 1849 ban could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide – which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent – but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin. Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.


Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by newer state laws regulating the procedure, including statutes that criminalize abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. The ruling came as no surprise given that liberal justices control the high court. One of them went so far as promising to uphold abortion rights during her campaign two years ago, and they blasted the ban during oral arguments in November. The statute Wisconsin legislators adopted in 1849, widely interpreted as a near-total ban on abortions, made it a felony for anyone other than the mother or a doctor in a medical emergency to destroy 'an unborn child.' The ban was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed it, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect trumped the ban. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation. Republican legislators also enacted laws under Roe requiring a woman to undergo an ultrasound, wait 24 hours before having the procedure and provide written consent, and mandating that doctors physically provide abortion-inducing drugs to women in their presence. The majority ruling concluded that 'the legislature impliedly repealed' the ban 'by enacting comprehensive legislation about virtually every aspect of abortion including where, when, and how healthcare providers may lawfully perform abortions.' 'That comprehensive legislation so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was clearly meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion,' Justice Rebeca Dallet wrote. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the 1849 ban in court, arguing that it could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent — but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin. Urmanski had asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. The liberal justices all but telegraphed how they would rule. Justice Janet Protasiewicz had openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. During oral arguments, Dallet declared that the ban was authored by white men who held all the power in the 19th century, while Justice Jill Karofsky likened the ban to a 'death warrant' for women and children who need medical care. A solid majority of Wisconsin voters in the 2024 election, 62%, said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to AP VoteCast. About one-third said abortion should be illegal in most cases and only 5% said it should be illegal in all cases. In a dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler called the ruling 'a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will.' She said the liberal justices caved in to their personal preferences and their Democratic constituencies, and accused Protasiewicz of promising to deliver Wednesday's decision during her campaign. 'Put bluntly, our court has no business usurping the role of the legislature, inventing legal theories on the fly in order to make four justices' personal preference the law,' Ziegler said. Urmanski's attorney, Andrew Phillips, didn't immediately respond to an email Wednesday morning seeking comment. Kaul's spokesperson, Riley Vetterkind, also didn't immediately return an email. Heather Weininger, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life, called the ruling 'deeply disappointing.' She said in a statement that the liberals failed to point to any statute that explicitly repealed the 1849 ban. 'To assert that a repeal is implied is to legislate from the bench,' she said. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin asked the Supreme Court in February to decide whether the 1849 ban was constitutional. The court dismissed that case with no explanation, drawing more criticism from Ziegler and conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley. Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling.