Latest news with #FreeExerciseClause
Mint
2 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
The Supreme Court Is Right to Respect Parents' Faith
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Here's why I think the Supreme Court might be on to something in its Friday decision allowing a group of Muslim and Christian parents to opt their young children out of public-school lessons that feature 'LGBTQ -inclusive texts': my wife and I sent our kids to private school. How does B lead to A? Let me explain. The case before the court, Mahmoud v. Taylor, arose from Montgomery County, Maryland, generally described as the most religiously diverse county in the United States. Part of that rich diversity will include a variety of views on gender and sexuality. When the school board realized that LGBTQ issues (and characters) were under-represented in the curriculum, it took a series of measures to present students with a richer spectrum of images and ideas. The original proposal included a provision under which parents harboring religious objections to the new materials could opt their children out. In the end, however, the opt-out was abandoned. Suit was filed on behalf of elementary school children by Muslim and Christian parents whose views on gender and sexuality skew traditionally religious. The parents didn't ask that the texts in question be banned. They asked that their kids might be excused. The school board responded that the materials did no more than expose the children to new ideas, and that in any case nobody was being coerced. The Supreme Court, by the now-familiar 6-3 vote, sided with the parents. Justice Samuel Alito's opinion for the majority goes on at length about the contents of the materials — 'at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender' one discussion guide explains; in another story the prince rejects the 'many ladies' who might rule beside him, and in the end falls in love with a (male) knight — but although I think the court reaches the right decision in the end, I wonder whether this long recital isn't wide of the point. The majority's view is that the lessons, in the end, violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment because the students are coerced; they have no choice but to view and listen to and discuss materials to which their parents have religious objections. I'm not at all sure, however, that coercion is the right First Amendment test, or, for that matter, that exposure equals coercion. But I'm equally unpersuaded by the argument that pooh-poohs parental fears, in which families struggling to preserve their own religions against the overweening tides of post-modernity are reduced to something like Kipling's 'lesser breeds without the law,' ignorant savages whose children the school must civilize. The right test is surely the extent to which the ability to raise children in one's chosen religion is burdened. And there our instinct under the Free Exercise Clause should in most cases be one of deference to the parents. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor presented what lawyers call a parade of horribles — possible bad consequences of the majority's rule — many of which were drawn from a brief written by people I know and admire. But friends may disagree. 'Teachers will need to adjust homework assignments to exclude objectionable material and develop bespoke exams for students subject to different opt-out preferences,' she writes. 'Schools will have to divert resources and staff to supervising students during opt-out periods, too, which could become a significant drain on funding and staffing that is already stretched thin.' Moreover, she continues, 'the majority's new rule will have serious chilling effects on public school curricula. Few school districts will be able to afford costly litigation over opt-out rights or to divert resources to administering impracticable notice and opt-out systems for individual students. The foreseeable result is that some school districts may strip their curricula of content that risks generating religious objections.' Let us concede that these consequences are undesirable. But will they all happen? An attractive possibility is that parental objections will turn out to be few, and easily managed; another is that reasonable people, working together, will find reasonable compromises. But if those possibilities seem like so much pie in the sky, we have a much bigger problem than the headaches of administrators charged with running the opt-out program. Because at that point, if parents will in fact seek exemptions willy-nilly for their children, we will have to admit that, at least in the eyes of many families, the public-school project has failed. And let's be clear about what that job is. It's educating the young, but it isn't just educating the young. It's working with families to help them raise their children. Schools shouldn't be competing with parents; they should be collaborating with them. This is particularly true when children are in elementary school, often taking their first steps into the world beyond the one their families have created. The Supreme Court's new test, with its implicit suggestion that coercion is found in exposure to materials that go against central tenets of parental religion, is more sledgehammer than scalpel. But if the instrument the majority wields is too blunt, the problem it's trying to solve is real. I quite recognize that we live at a time when advances on issues of gender and sexuality are not only under threat but, in some cases, being actively rolled back. But those battles should be fought on their own terms; when it comes to raising children, parental freedom is entitled to a wide berth. Which brings us back to how B leads to A. When our children reached school age, we decided on private rather than public education, even though the public schools in our community were top-notch academically. But we wanted more than academics. We wanted them to have an education that would reinforce rather than do battle with the values we sought to teach them at home. Not everybody can afford those choices; but the public schools should do their best to find ways to accommodate those who wish they could. And, no, my wife and I had no problem with Heather Has Two Mommies, back when that now quaint-seeming book was the big cultural battleground. But I've been writing about religious freedom for four decades, and I'm not about to argue that the parents should win only if I agree with them. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of law at Yale University and author of 'Invisible: The Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most Powerful Mobster.' More stories like this are available on
NBC News
22-05-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court deadlocks 4-4 on nation's first religious charter school
WASHINGTON — Oklahoma will not be able to launch the nation's first religious public charter school after the Supreme Court on Thursday deadlocked 4-4 in a major case on the separation of church and state. 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. 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 said that under the Free Exercise Clause, states cannot bar religious groups from government programs that are open to everyone else. During the oral argument, Roberts pushed back, indicating that he saw the schools case as different from the previous decisions. Those cases, he said, 'involved fairly discrete state involvement' compared with Oklahoma's charter school program. 'This does strike me as a much more comprehensive involvement,' he added. 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.
CNBC
22-05-2025
- Politics
- CNBC
Supreme Court deadlocks 4-4 on nation's first religious charter school
WASHINGTON — Oklahoma will not be able to launch the nation's first religious public charter school after the Supreme Court on Thursday deadlocked 4-4 in a major case on the separation of church and state. 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.
NBC News
22-05-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court sidesteps major ruling on religious public charter schools
WASHINGTON — Oklahoma will not be able to launch the nation's first ever religious public charter school after the Supreme Court on Thursday deadlocked 4-4 in a major case on the separation of church and state. 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.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: A Way Out of SCOTUS Charter School Ruling Mess: Focus on Mission, Not Religion
On April 30, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could compel states with charter school laws to authorize religious charters. Reporters from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and The 74 said the court's conservative majority bloc appeared 'open to' religious charter schools. Such a ruling would be bad for the country and deeply disruptive. It could upend the charter school sector, raising questions about the constitutionality of the federal charter school law and the laws in 47 states, all of which require charters to be nonsectarian. It could lead to blue states cutting back on charter schools and red states seeing a flood of religious charters open up, which would further balkanize an already divided country. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Is there any hope? The best outcome would be if one of the conservative justices — most likely Chief Justice John Roberts — ended up siding with the liberal justices and rejecting a requirement that authorizers must permit religious charter schools. The second-best outcome would be if policymakers took creative steps (as I outline below) to comply with an adverse Supreme Court ruling while preserving social cohesion and retaining for charter schools the flexibility they need to flourish. I have a modest hope that Roberts's vote may be in play. If he votes with the court's three liberal justices, a 4-4 decision would let stand the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision opposing religious charters. (Justice Amy Coney Barrett is recused in the case.) In the oral arguments, the justices homed in on the central question in the case: Are charters public or private? If they are public, then the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits them from being religious. If they are private, by contrast, the court's interpretations of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause that government cannot discriminate against religious schools would apply. Related In Case the Choice World 'Dreaded,' Justices Appear Open to Religious Charters Roberts asked tough questions of both sides, but the most hopeful moment came when he noted that the state has 'a much more comprehensive involvement' in charter schools than in private schools, which could tilt his thinking against religious charters. Greg Garre, who served as solicitor general under former President George W. Bush, made a powerful case that charter schools are public. He noted that private schools differ from charter schools in eight respects: 'Private schools can open without any state approval.' 'There are no requirements or supervision of curriculum for private schools.' Private schools 'can charge tuition.' Private schools 'can restrict admissions.' Private schools are 'not subject to general state assessment tests.' Private schools are 'not subject to nearly the reporting requirements or oversight as public schools' Private schools 'not subject to state rules regarding student discipline, civil rights [and] health' 'There's no process for closing' private schools 'short of consumer fraud.' If Roberts nevertheless decides, along with other conservatives, that charter schools are private schools, and states are compelled to authorize religious charters, that would set off a number of consequences. First, blue states are likely to rebel. As Justice Neil Gorsuch noted, some states may begin 'imposing more requirements on charter schools,' essentially making them more 'public.' For a sector that thrives on independence, this could constitute a 'boomerang effect.' Second, red states are likely to see a number of religious private schools convert to charter status. As Justice Elena Kagan noted, 'There's a big incentive to operating charter schools, since everything is funded for you.' She expected to see 'a line out the door' of applicants. Third, there is likely to be more litigation. As the justices asked in the oral argument: If charters are deemed private schools, then does that mean a conservative Christian charter school could, as a matter of religious liberty, bar the admissions of Jewish, Muslim and gay students? Could the same school discriminate against gay or non-Christian faculty members? Could it reject state standards requiring that it teach evolution? Related Supreme Court Must Not Undermine Public Education in Religious Charter Case I found this all very depressing, but there was one compelling moment in the oral argument that gave me some hope and sparked an idea about how state charter school boards could minimize the damage of a negative Supreme Court decision: focus on the question of a school's mission. At one point during the argument, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a hypothetical question. If the government wanted to commission a mural and a religious painter wanted to include religious images, could the government reject that approach? Yes, said James Campbell, the attorney for the charter school board, because in that case, 'the government is trying to speak its own message on its own buildings.' He claimed that the charter school law in Oklahoma, by contrast, gives 'broad autonomy to the schools to come up with their own mission.' Under that logic, what if charter school laws were amended to say that applicant schools were free to identify a number of missions, but that they had to identify as their ultimate mission teaching the liberal democratic values that bind together Americans of all backgrounds? That's already a central premise built into the constitutions and laws of many states. As Albert Shanker, who first brought the idea of public charter schools to the national stage, argued, the primary mission of public education is to teach these values, which is bound up in 'what it means to be an American.' Related States Should Support Religious Education — But Not Through Charter Schools Teaching liberal democratic values is probably consistent with the approach of most religious charter schools, but few are likely to agree that this is their most important mission. The Oklahoma school at the center of the Supreme Court case, St. Isadore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, says its 'ultimate goal' is 'eternal salvation.' For many religious leaders, saying that promoting liberal democracy is their school's primary mission would constitute blasphemy. When former President Joe Biden called the ideals in America's founding documents 'sacred,' a Catholic priest objected in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, saying, 'America isn't sacred. Only God is.' The test for charter school applicants wouldn't be religious; it would be one of mission. Not every religious school would fail the test, and not every secular school would pass it. If the government is entitled to 'speak its own message on its own building,' why can't a state ask the schools it funds to advance as their central message the preservation of liberal democracy?
