Latest news with #OklahomaStatewideCharterSchoolBoard
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
A recent history of Supreme Court ties
This article was first published in the State of Faith newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each Monday night. The Supreme Court's religious charter school case came in with a bang and ended with a tie. The justices announced Thursday that they were 'equally divided' in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, which means the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling against the first-of-its-kind school remains in place. The possibility of a deadlocked court had been floated ever since Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself. Still, Thursday's announcement felt surreal — and anticlimactic. Well, maybe anticlimactic is the wrong word. I wasn't so much disappointed as I was unsettled by the idea that the country is no closer to a consensus on religious charter schools today than it was before the Oklahoma case was fully briefed and argued. But admitting that probably makes me sound naive. Multiple closely watched Supreme Court cases have ended in ties over the past decade, or in extremely narrow rulings that said little about underlying constitutional questions. Ties on the Supreme Court can stem from recusals, as the Drummond ruling did, or from vacancies. After Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, a few notable cases ended with a 4-4 vote, including United States v. Texas, which was about the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which was about public school unions. Ties stemming from recusals are particularly common after a new justice is appointed to the court, because the justice can't participate in cases they considered or worked on in their previous position. In the case of a tie at the Supreme Court level, the lower court decision remains in place. Tie rulings may become more common moving forward as the justices adapt to the court's relatively new ethics code. The code, which was adopted in 2023, puts more pressure on the justices to track and disclose potential conflicts of interest. The new ethics rules likely explain why four justices recused themselves this month from considering whether to hear a case that involved a prominent book publisher, according to The Washington Post. Because there weren't six justices left to vote, the lower court ruling will remain in place. First-of-its-kind religious charter school blocked by deadlocked Supreme Court Prayer service at Pentagon sparks religious freedom debate New research on astrology, tarot cards and fortune tellers is full of surprises Omega Gym in Rome caters to an unusual clientele: priests, nuns and monsignors from the Vatican City. Pope Leo XIV went there several times a week over the past two years — when he was still known as Robert Prevost — as he tried to improve his 'posture and cardiovascular capacity,' according to The Associated Press. 'When the name of the pope was announced, my phone rings and my son tells me, 'Dad, it's Robert! Robert, our member!'' Francesco Tamburlani, the owner of the gym, told the AP. 'I heard the gym staff behind him cheering. ... This moved us, filled us with joy.' Tamburlani added that Pope Leo's gym membership is still active, although it's unclear if he'll be able to use it. 'We would organize our gym to guarantee his safety and his privacy. We would just need a sign,' he told the AP. By now, you're probably sick of hearing about young people drifting away from organized religion. But I'm only bringing that up again now to help explain my fascination with the fact that engagement with religious programming is actually on the rise on college campuses across the country. 'People want to feel loved for who they are and not what they do,' Chaz Lattimore Howard, the university chaplain at the University of Pennsylvania, told The Atlantic. Whether or not they believe in God, they 'want to be reassured that it's going to be okay.' In his latest article for Religion Unplugged, my friend Bobby Ross Jr. offered an in-depth look at a faith-focused event that set the stage for a Detroit Tigers baseball game. NPR recently visited a small community south of Tampa, Florida, that's reeling after a beloved local pastor was unexpectedly detained by ICE. The Rev. Maurilio Ambrocio had paperwork allowing him to be in the United States and checked in with immigration agents regularly, but he was still taken into detention in April. 'You're gonna take you know a community leader, a Pastor, a hard working man … What, did you need a number that day?," one of the pastor's neighbors told NPR. Earlier this month, I wrote about a surprising religious freedom battle in Toms River, New Jersey, involving a proposed homeless shelter, a proposed pickleball court and eminent domain. The New York Times covered the same conflict last week and summarized the latest developments. Hope you had a great Memorial Day weekend! Now it's time for the most important holiday season of all: my birthday week.
CBS News
22-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Supreme Court deadlocks in dispute over effort to create first religious charter school
Washington — An evenly divided Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court decision that invalidated a contract approved the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board that established the nation's first religious charter school. The high court split 4-4, which leaves in place the decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in the case. The high court issued a one-line unsigned decision stating "the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court." The case, argued at the end of April, could have opened the door to public dollars flowing directly to religious schools. But following the arguments, it appeared that the outcome of the case would hinge on Chief Justice John Roberts, who focused on the level of state involvement in its charter school program. A decision in favor of the school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, could have led to the country's first religious charter school. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who argued against establishment of the school, had warned that a decision allowing its contract to stand would upend laws in at least 45 states and the District of Columbia, as well as the federal charter school program, all of which require charter schools to be nonsectarian. Oklahoma has offered charter schools within its public education system since 1999 and, like at least 44 other states and the federal charter school program, requires the institutions to be "nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations." The state has at least 30 charter schools that serve more than 50,000 students, and they received $314 million from the state and $69 million in federal funds in the 2022 to 2023 school year, according to a 2023 report from the Oklahoma State Department of Education. In January 2023, the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa formed the St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School Inc. for the purpose of establishing and operating St. Isidore as a Catholic school, according to court records. That May, St. Isidore applied to the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board to establish it as a virtual charter school that "fully embraces the teachings of the Catholic Church's Magisterium" and "fully incorporates these [teachings] into every aspect of the school." The school estimated initial enrollment of 500 students and projected it would receive roughly $2.7 million in state funding for its first year of operation, according to court documents. Ahead of a vote by the board, Drummond warned against approval of St. Isidore's application, and said an earlier analysis from his predecessor supporting the school could be "used as a basis for taxpayer-funded religious schools, which is exactly what [St. Isidore] seeks to become." Still, the charter school board voted 3-2 to approve St. Isidore's application, and in October 2023, it and the school entered in a contract establishing St. Isidore's as a charter school. That month, Drummond sued the board directly in the Oklahoma Supreme Court and asked it to rescind the charter contract and declare St. Isidore's establishment as a charter school unlawful. The attorney general prevailed before the state's highest court, which ruled that because St. Isidore's is a public charter school, it violated the state's requirement that those entities be nonreligious, as well as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, in part because it would "permit state spending in direct support of the religious curriculum and activities within St. Isidore." This is a developing story and will be updated.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Proponents of religious charter schools should remember originalism isn't partisan
Shortly into an oral argument last month in which the Supreme Court looked ready to destabilize public education as we know it by embracing a constitutional right to publicly funded religious charter schools, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked a striking question — perhaps one of the most important in his tenure thus far as a Supreme Court justice. 'There are historic examples of funding being denied to religious schools and no free exercise claim followed,' he said. So why, Gorsuch wanted to know, were there no such legal challenges in American history, even though religious schools were routinely denied funds just like the Oklahoma religious school claiming a modern-day right to taxpayer funds? In an oral argument in which supporters of public education and church-state separation had plenty of cause for concern, the justice's question offered a rare moment of intrigue. For if Gorsuch follows his originalist principles to an evenhanded conclusion, his question could pave the way to a sensible middle-ground outcome in which neither side gets everything it wants. Let's start with the question itself. Three years ago, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court held that when it comes to interpreting the constitutional rights that states are bound to respect under the 14th Amendment, the 'most important' fact is 'how the states regulated' the practice at issue in the mid-1800s, 'when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.' Thus, in Dobbs, the court found it crucial that when states began to deny access to early-term abortion in the mid-19th century, 'no one, as far as we are aware, argued that the laws they enacted violated a fundamental right.' To the conservative justices, then, the legal conclusion was 'inescapable' — the right to abortion 'is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions.' In the current case, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, religious school advocates are advancing a right based on the same logical structure. States, they argue, are bound by the 14th Amendment to provide religious charter schools with public funds. If the court wishes to be intellectually consistent, the analogous historical evidence should decide this claim — that is, it should hinge on how states regulated religious school funding requests in the years before the 14th Amendment. The history on this score is unequivocal. During the mid-19th century, from New York to Indiana and California to New Jersey, states denied numerous requests from religious schools for public funds on equal terms with their peer schools. And critically — just as was true in Dobbs — when the states regulated in this way, no one argued that that they violated a constitutional right. The complete absence of any historic claims to a free exercise right to taxpayer-funded religious schools is especially significant because, as Gorsuch astutely observed at oral argument, there were 'state equivalents to the Free Exercise clause' in the U.S. Constitution that would have been obvious sources of litigation. Yet, as Gorsuch forcefully noted, 'there were no challenges.' Any claimed right to publicly funded religious schools is thus not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions. One might think that the attorneys for the religious charter school position would have been prepared with a response to this glaring historical problem. Yet counsel for the religious charter school position, an experienced advocate named James Campbell, was flummoxed. First, he confused the Free Exercise Clause with the Establishment Clause. Then, he argued that it didn't matter that no religious school ever brought a state constitutional Free Exercise lawsuit for public funding because this case 'involves the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.' But that answer was painfully misguided too, because, as Campbell had just admitted, the states weren't bound by the First Amendment until much later in history. Worst of all for Campbell, none other than Justice Samuel Alito has argued that state free exercise provisions are the 'best evidence of the scope of the right embodied in the' Free Exercise Clause. So, on Alito's logic, if there was no state free exercise right to religious school funding in the 1800s, then there is no federal free exercise right today, either. And if Gorsuch was inclined to follow that straightforward logic leading into oral argument, nothing anyone said would have moved him off it. Gorsuch's question is fascinating. Not only does it suggest that religious charter school proponents might pump the breaks on their early celebrations, but it also opens a path to a surprising middle ground for the court. The Supreme Court seems inclined to hold that states may choose voluntarily to fund religious charter schools without violating the Establishment Clause. That would be consistent with our nation's history — in early America, some states did fund religious education. Of course, states today are already free to fund religious private schools through their voucher programs, so allowing them to do the same via charter programs would not materially change the status quo. But if the court truly wishes to follow history in an evenhanded fashion, it would also hold that states such as New York or California are free to make the opposite choice as well, and refrain from funding religious charter schools. Such a ruling would not only leave the issue of what kind of charter schools to fund up to the people's elected representatives in each state — yet another theme in the Dobbs decision — it would also lend a powerful case study in support of the conservative justices' claim that originalism can in fact be applied neutrally to deliver surprising results across the ideological spectrum. Of course, the reverse would be true as well. If the conservative justices rule in favor of the deeply ahistorical free exercise claim for religious charter school funding, the price they'll pay will be far greater than the ire of those who support church-state separation in matters of public education. It will be a public nail in the coffin of originalism as a neutral theory of constitutional interpretation in the hands of this conservative court. Aaron Tang is a law professor at the University of California, Davis. He is a former law clerk to Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Proponents of religious charter schools should remember originalism isn't partisan
Shortly into an oral argument last month in which the Supreme Court looked ready to destabilize public education as we know it by embracing a constitutional right to publicly funded religious charter schools, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked a striking question — perhaps one of the most important in his tenure thus far as a Supreme Court justice. 'There are historic examples of funding being denied to religious schools and no free exercise claim followed,' he said. So why, Gorsuch wanted to know, were there no such legal challenges in American history, even though religious schools were routinely denied funds just like the Oklahoma religious school claiming a modern-day right to taxpayer funds? In an oral argument in which supporters of public education and church-state separation had plenty of cause for concern, the justice's question offered a rare moment of intrigue. For if Gorsuch follows his originalist principles to an evenhanded conclusion, his question could pave the way to a sensible middle-ground outcome in which neither side gets everything it wants. Let's start with the question itself. Three years ago, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court held that when it comes to interpreting the constitutional rights that states are bound to respect under the 14th Amendment, the 'most important' fact is 'how the states regulated' the practice at issue in the mid-1800s, 'when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.' Thus, in Dobbs, the court found it crucial that when states began to deny access to early-term abortion in the mid-19th century, 'no one, as far as we are aware, argued that the laws they enacted violated a fundamental right.' To the conservative justices, then, the legal conclusion was 'inescapable' — the right to abortion 'is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions.' In the current case, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, religious school advocates are advancing a right based on the same logical structure. States, they argue, are bound by the 14th Amendment to provide religious charter schools with public funds. If the court wishes to be intellectually consistent, the analogous historical evidence should decide this claim — that is, it should hinge on how states regulated religious school funding requests in the years before the 14th Amendment. The history on this score is unequivocal. During the mid-19th century, from New York to Indiana and California to New Jersey, states denied numerous requests from religious schools for public funds on equal terms with their peer schools. And critically — just as was true in Dobbs — when the states regulated in this way, no one argued that that they violated a constitutional right. The complete absence of any historic claims to a free exercise right to taxpayer-funded religious schools is especially significant because, as Gorsuch astutely observed at oral argument, there were 'state equivalents to the Free Exercise clause' in the U.S. Constitution that would have been obvious sources of litigation. Yet, as Gorsuch forcefully noted, 'there were no challenges.' Any claimed right to publicly funded religious schools is thus not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions. One might think that the attorneys for the religious charter school position would have been prepared with a response to this glaring historical problem. Yet counsel for the religious charter school position, an experienced advocate named James Campbell, was flummoxed. First, he confused the Free Exercise Clause with the Establishment Clause. Then, he argued that it didn't matter that no religious school ever brought a state constitutional Free Exercise lawsuit for public funding because this case 'involves the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.' But that answer was painfully misguided too, because, as Campbell had just admitted, the states weren't bound by the First Amendment until much later in history. Worst of all for Campbell, none other than Justice Samuel Alito has argued that state free exercise provisions are the 'best evidence of the scope of the right embodied in the' Free Exercise Clause. So, on Alito's logic, if there was no state free exercise right to religious school funding in the 1800s, then there is no federal free exercise right today, either. And if Gorsuch was inclined to follow that straightforward logic leading into oral argument, nothing anyone said would have moved him off it. Gorsuch's question is fascinating. Not only does it suggest that religious charter school proponents might pump the breaks on their early celebrations, but it also opens a path to a surprising middle ground for the court. The Supreme Court seems inclined to hold that states may choose voluntarily to fund religious charter schools without violating the Establishment Clause. That would be consistent with our nation's history — in early America, some states did fund religious education. Of course, states today are already free to fund religious private schools through their voucher programs, so allowing them to do the same via charter programs would not materially change the status quo. But if the court truly wishes to follow history in an evenhanded fashion, it would also hold that states such as New York or California are free to make the opposite choice as well, and refrain from funding religious charter schools. Such a ruling would not only leave the issue of what kind of charter schools to fund up to the people's elected representatives in each state — yet another theme in the Dobbs decision — it would also lend a powerful case study in support of the conservative justices' claim that originalism can in fact be applied neutrally to deliver surprising results across the ideological spectrum. Of course, the reverse would be true as well. If the conservative justices rule in favor of the deeply ahistorical free exercise claim for religious charter school funding, the price they'll pay will be far greater than the ire of those who support church-state separation in matters of public education. It will be a public nail in the coffin of originalism as a neutral theory of constitutional interpretation in the hands of this conservative court. Aaron Tang is a law professor at the University of California, Davis. He is a former law clerk to Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
OK must improve education. Supreme Court should allow religious charter school.
Oklahoma families will be closely following arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond on April 30 at the U.S. Supreme Court. The case will determine whether states will be free to provide more innovative solutions to improve education for the benefit of all families and for our nation's future. I don't know anyone who believes that our education system cannot and should not be improved. Oklahoma continues to rank near the bottom in educational outcomes. There really is no good excuse to continue letting our children down. That is why I serve as chairman of the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, and it is why we have taken this case to the high court through our attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom. Expanding choices for parents gives them the power to decide the best educational fit for their children, and it creates the kind of competition that improves the quality of education across the board. As the father of twins who have very different learning styles and who have been in various schools, I know first-hand the importance of options and why one-size-fits-all education doesn't work. Opinion: Allowing St. Isidore school would threaten religious liberty The beauty of the charter system is that it pushes the boundaries of preconceived ideas to imagine what is possible. In states where charter schools are thriving, traditional public schools are doing better than they were before charters existed. It should be no surprise that children actually learn much better in the environment that matches their needs. Our children have nothing to lose and much to gain by being presented with as many strong educational options as possible. And if those options — like St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — are made available virtually, so that children can log on for classes from any corner of the state, so much the better. Opinion: Why we favor state funding of a Catholic charter school St. Isidore is a private, religious, nonprofit organization founded by two Catholic dioceses. It is fully operated by a privately selected board that sets the school's curriculum, policies and operational decisions, while contracting with the state to receive per-pupil funding. What's more, as a virtual school, St. Isidore would offer a high-quality, no-tuition, robust academic curriculum, along with Catholic education to any student in the state no matter their location or faith background. No child is required to be Catholic — or of any faith — to enroll, and no child can be excluded if space is available. Currently, no other school in the state can offer what St. Isidore planned to provide to Oklahoma families. For these reasons and more, St. Isidore had quickly drawn notice from more than 200 families who want to enroll their children in the school. But those families will have to wait for the Supreme Court to rule to know whether they will be able send their children to St. Isidore. After being approved for participation in the charter school program under the predecessor board and previous state attorney general, Oklahoma's current attorney general, Gentner Drummond, reversed course and determined St. Isidore should be excluded. The reason? Because St. Isidore — qualified by every measure — is religious. That's it. And that's unconstitutional. Twenty-eight amicus briefs in support of the board's position have been filed with the high court in this case, and the United States government has been granted permission to argue on behalf of all Americans. This demonstrates a broad-spectrum understanding of how important these educational options are for everyone. It speaks to an appreciation for the constitutional principles involved and for the rich possibilities available for all families, as charter schools present communities with unique learning options. As for the high court itself, the justices may be feeling some sense of déjà vu. Over the last decade, the court has repeatedly affirmed the constitutional rights of religious schools like St. Isidore to receive government funds. This applies when schools qualify for state programs. In three recent decisions — Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer(Missouri), Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Carson v. Makin(Maine) — the justices declared those state monies may be made available, and those of faith cannot be clear that many thoughtful judicial minds and countless loving parents know what is at stake before the highest court in the land. While the Supreme Court can't solve the crisis in our education system with one ruling, we're hoping that it will affirm Oklahoma's freedom to pursue solutions that will lead to a better future for our children. Brian Shellem is chairman of the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board. This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: US Supreme Court religious charter school case may help OK | Opinion
