Latest news with #St.Isidore
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
What Oklahoma's halted religious charter school means for the future of public education in the US
US Supreme Court deadlock upholds Oklahoma ruling against taxpayer-funded religious charter school. (AI Image) An Oklahoma lawsuit challenging the country's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school has ended following a series of court decisions, including a 4-4 deadlock at the US Supreme Court. The case revolved around St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Charter School, which sought to operate with public funds while teaching Catholic doctrine. The resolution of the lawsuit has significant implications for the future of religious charter schools and the relationship between public education and church-state separation in the US. The Oklahoma Parent Legislative Advocacy Coalition (OKPLAC), a group made up of faith leaders, public school parents, and education advocates, initially filed the lawsuit in 2023 to stop taxpayer funding of the religious school. After the US Supreme Court's tie upheld a lower court's decision and the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the school unconstitutional under the state constitution, OKPLAC voluntarily dismissed its case. The Supreme Court deadlock effectively allowed the state ruling to stand, maintaining Oklahoma's ban on publicly funded religious charter schools. Legal battle over taxpayer-funded religious schools The Oklahoma County lawsuit was the first filed against St. Isidore, which was approved by the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board to operate as an online Catholic school funded by taxpayers. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Sunteck Launches Windcrest Collection 2 & 3 BHKs from ₹1.27 Cr* Sunteck Sky Park Learn More Undo Although students of all faiths or no faith could attend, the school planned to teach Catholic doctrine and operate according to church principles. The coalition, alongside legal support from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, challenged the funding, citing constitutional concerns over separation of church and state. The Oklahoma Supreme Court's June ruling found that the operation of a religious charter school with public funding violated the state constitution. Following that, St. Isidore and the charter school board appealed to the US Supreme Court. However, with the court split 4-4, the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision remained in effect. Response from advocacy groups and officials Misty Bradley, chair of OKPLAC, expressed gratitude for those who supported the lawsuit and for Attorney General Gentner Drummond's efforts, as reported by the Oklahoma Voice. "We are grateful for the organisations and individuals who stood with us and for Attorney General Gentner Drummond's successful efforts to uphold Oklahoma's constitution and protect its taxpayers and public schools," she said. The ACLU's Daniel Mach welcomed the outcome, stating, "We're pleased that the courts stopped this direct assault on public education and religious freedom," as quoted by the Oklahoma Voice. "Public schools must remain secular and welcome all students, regardless of faith." Meanwhile, Governor Kevin Stitt, a supporter of St. Isidore, indicated that the matter was not settled. According to the Oklahoma Voice, he said, "This 4-4 tie is a non-decision. Now we're in overtime. There will be another case just like this one and Justice Barrett will break the tie. This is far from a settled issue." Implications for the future of US public education The case highlights ongoing tensions between religious freedom and public school funding, raising questions about how states will navigate the constitutional boundaries of taxpayer funding for religious education. Oklahoma's legal decisions underscore a cautious approach to preserving church-state separation in public schooling, at least under current interpretations. As efforts to establish publicly funded religious charter schools continue, the US Supreme Court may revisit this issue with a full bench. The outcome could influence not only Oklahoma but also other states considering similar religious charter school models, shaping the future landscape of public education across the country. The dismissal of the lawsuit and court rulings mark a significant precedent in the US, emphasising the complex balance between parental rights, religious education, and constitutional principles in publicly funded schooling. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
When it comes to students' and teachers' rights, are charter schools public or private?
Future U.S. Supreme Court decisions could impact more than issues of religion and state, determining what basic rights students and teachers do or don't have at charter schools. (Photo: Hugh Jackson/Nevada Current) In April 2025, the Supreme Court heard arguments about whether the nation's first religious charter school could open in Oklahoma. The St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School would have been funded by taxpayer money but run by a local archdiocese and diocese. Several justices appeared open to the idea during questioning, leading some analysts to predict a win for the school. They were proved wrong on May 22, 2025, when the court blocked St. Isidore. The one-sentence, unsigned order did not indicate how individual justices had voted, nor why, simply declaring it was a split 4-4 decision that leaves in place the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling against the school. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case. Her former employer, the University of Notre Dame, runs a law clinic representing the school's supporters. Ever since the proposed school started making headlines, attention has focused on religion. Critics warned a decision in the school's favor could allow government dollars to directly fund faith-based charter schools nationwide. In part, the justices had to decide whether the First Amendment's prohibition on government establishing religion applies to charter schools. But the answer to that question is part of an even bigger issue: Are charters really public in the first place? The Supreme Court's order applies only to Oklahoma, so similar cases attempting to open religious charter schools may emerge down the road. As two professors who study education law, we believe future court decisions could impact more than issues of religion and state, determining what basic rights students and teachers do or don't have at charter schools. In June 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved St. Isidore's application to open as an online K-12 school. The following year, however, the Oklahoma high court ruled that the proposal was unconstitutional. The justices concluded that charter schools are public under state law, and that the First Amendment's establishment clause forbids public schools from being religious. The court also found that a religious charter school would violate Oklahoma's constitution, which specifically forbids public money from benefiting religious organizations. On appeal, the charter school claimed that charter schools are private, and so the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause does not apply. Moreover, St. Isidore argued that if charter schools are private, the state's prohibition on religious charters violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause, which bars the government from limiting 'the free exercise' of religion. Previous Supreme Court cases have found that states cannot prevent private religious entities from participating in generally available government programs solely because they are religious. In other words, while St. Isidore's critics argued that opening a religious charter school would violate the First Amendment, its supporters claimed the exact opposite: that forbidding religious charter schools would violate the First Amendment. The question of whether an institution is public or private turns on a legal concept known as the 'state action doctrine.' This principle provides that the government must follow the Constitution, while private entities do not have to. For example, unlike students in public schools, students in private schools do not have the constitutional right to due process for suspensions and expulsions – procedures to ensure fairness before taking disciplinary action. Charter schools have some characteristics of both public and private institutions. Like traditional public schools, they are government-funded, free and open to all students. However, like private schools, they are free from many laws that apply to public schools, and they are independently run. Because of charters' hybrid nature, courts have had a hard time determining whether they should be considered public for legal purposes. Many charter schools are overseen by private corporations with privately appointed boards, and it is unclear whether these private entities are state actors. Two federal circuit courts have reached different conclusions. In Caviness v. Horizon Learning Center, a case from 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that an Arizona charter school corporation was not a state actor for employment purposes. Therefore, the board did not have to provide a teacher due process before firing him. The court reasoned that the corporation was a private actor that contracted with the state to provide educational services. In contrast, the 4th Circuit ruled in 2022 that a North Carolina charter school board was a state actor under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, Peltier v. Charter Day School, students challenged the dress code requirement that female students wear skirts because they were considered 'fragile vessels.' The court first reasoned that the board was a state actor because North Carolina had delegated its constitutional duty to provide education. The court observed that the charter school's dress code was an inappropriate sex-based classification, and that school officials engaged in harmful gender stereotyping, violating the equal protection clause. If the Supreme Court had sided with St. Isidore – as many analysts thought was likely – then all private charter corporations might have been considered nonstate actors for the purposes of religion. But the stakes are even greater than that. State action involves more than just religion. Indeed, teachers and students in private schools do not have the constitutional rights related to free speech, search and seizure, due process and equal protection. In other words, if charter schools are not considered 'state actors,' charter students and teachers may eventually shed constitutional rights 'at the schoolhouse gate.' When courts have held that charter schools are not public in state law, some legislatures have made changes to categorize them as public. For example, California passed a law to clarify that charter school students have the same due process rights as traditional public school students after a court ruled otherwise. Likewise, we believe states looking to clear up charter schools' ambiguous state actor status under the Constitution can amend their laws. As we explain in a recent legal article, a 1995 Supreme Court case involving Amtrak illustrates how this can be done. Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation arose when Amtrak rejected a billboard ad for being political. The advertiser sued, arguing that the corporation had violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Since private organizations are not required to protect free speech rights, the case hinged on whether Amtrak qualified as a government agency. The court ruled in the plaintiff's favor, reasoning that Amtrak was a government actor because it was created by special law, served important governmental objectives and its board members were appointed by the government. Courts have applied this ruling in other instances. For example, the 10th Circuit ruled in 2016 that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was a governmental agency and therefore was required to abide by the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Since the Supreme Court did not release any reasoning for its order, we do not know how the justices viewed the 'government actor' question in the case from Oklahoma. That said, we believe charter schools fail the test set out in the Amtrak decision. Charter schools do serve the governmental purpose of providing educational choice for students. However, charter school corporations are not created by special law. They also fall short because most have independent boards instead of members who are appointed and removed by government officials. However, we would argue that states can amend their laws to comply with Lebron's standard, ensuring that charter schools are public or state actors for constitutional purposes. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court deadlock leaves religious charter schools thinking they have a path forward
The bid to create the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school fell flat at the Supreme Court this week, but advocates believe it leaves them with a path forward. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the court's 4-4 deadlocked decision, suggesting she could provide the crucial fifth vote in a similar case down the road. With the justices releasing no opinions to dissuade another shot at the Supreme Court, groups on both sides of the issue are expecting a Round 2. 'Obviously, the outcome here was in part because there were only eight justices. Justice Barrett did not participate here. That might not be the case in a future case, but we don't know of the of the eight justices who did participate … we don't know who took what position,' said Thomas Jipping, a senior legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. 'There wasn't a decision, and you can't infer anything from silence,' he added. For months, the fate of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in Oklahoma rested with the Supreme Court. The state's top court had voided the school's contract as unconstitutional. When the justices announced in January they would review that ruling, Barrett indicated she wouldn't be participating. She did not publicly explain her recusal, but court watchers believe it stems from her close friendship with Nicole Garnett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School. Notre Dame's religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore, and Garnett has publicly supported the school. 'I'm obviously disappointed at the result, but the order has no precedential weight,' Garnett said in a statement. 'The question whether barring religious charter schools violates the Constitution remains live, and I remain confident that the Court will eventually rule that it does.' Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are run by private organizations and must be open to all students. Its critics warn that the movement would take away taxpayer funding for traditional public schools and instead put those dollars toward religious education. 'The entire survival of the public school system as a nonsectarian institution in this country, a 250-year-old proposition, is at risk,' Columbia Law School professor James Liebman said. Barrett's specific reasoning for sitting out remains unclear, as the justices have acquaintances and friends who regularly participate before the court. But her recusal was celebrated by watchdogs that have pushed for stronger ethical standards at the Supreme Court. 'Today's deadlock shows the justices have it within them to exercise ethical leadership, even if it leads to results some might deem less than supreme,' Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, said in a statement. It leaves open the possibility Barrett could participate in a future, similar case that deals with a different school and with which the conservative justice has no conflict. 'From an institutional and an ethical perspective, it is far better that Justice Barrett sat out this case due to her conflict than exercise a purported 'duty to sit,' which would've caused an air of bias to hang over it. The religious charter school issue will undoubtedly return to the court, and we'll know Justice Barrett's views soon enough,' Roth continued. Supporters of St. Isidore are hoping Thursday's decision is not the end of the road. 'We are exploring other options for offering a virtual Catholic education to all persons in the state,' Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley and Tulsa Bishop David Konderla, whose dioceses formed the school, said in a joint statement. 'While the Supreme Court's order is disappointing for educational freedom, the 4-4 decision does not set precedent, allowing the court to revisit this issue in the future,' said Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jim Campbell, who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of Oklahoma's charter school board. Even those who were pleased that the court did not sign off on St. Isidore acknowledge this will not be the end to the issue. 'It would be better, of course, if we would have had the certainty of a 5-3 decision. But maybe another case will come before the court at some point. But, for today, and for next school year, and for the foreseeable future, charter schools will continue to operate on public schools as they always were,' said Starlee Coleman, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Liebman, who filed an amicus brief in the case opposing St. Isidore, noted the case was part of a push happening all over the country to establish publicly funded religious charter schools. 'It didn't work out as they hoped,' Liebman said. 'But they will certainly generate a new case, or many new cases, and those cases will come back to the Supreme Court, and so the issue will certainly be kept front and center.' The case entered the religious liberty sphere advocates have been trying to break open in public schools at the Supreme Court for years. At the crux of the dispute is whether schools such as St. Isidore should legally be considered a state actor, like an ordinary public school. The Supreme Court has held that states may require their public schools be secular. But the school pointed to previous cases the Supreme Court decided in Maine, Montana and Missouri, which prohibited the states from blocking religious schools' eligibility for grant programs for private schools. Jipping said the argument fell flat as this case didn't 'line up clearly' with court precedent, and this instance was 'a little unusual to try to, well, to bring to the Supreme Court.' 'I do think also this decision and this case suggests that the better way to provide alternatives to parents, for parents to the traditional public schools is for states to expand their school choice programs,' he added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
25-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court deadlock religious charter schools with path forward
The bid to create the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school fell flat at the Supreme Court this week, but advocates believe it leaves them with a path forward. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the court's 4-4 deadlocked decision, suggesting she could provide the crucial fifth vote in a similar case down the road. With the justices releasing no opinions to dissuade another shot at the Supreme Court, groups on both sides of the issue are expecting a Round 2. 'Obviously, the outcome here was in part because there were only eight justices. Justice Barrett did not participate here. That might not be the case in a future case, but we don't know of the of the eight justices who did participate … we don't know who took what position,' said Thomas Jipping, a senior legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. 'There wasn't a decision, and you can't infer anything from silence,' he added. For months, the fate of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in Oklahoma rested with the Supreme Court. The state's top court had voided the school's contract as unconstitutional. When the justices announced in January they would review that ruling, Barrett indicated she wouldn't be participating. She did not publicly explain her recusal, but court watchers believe it stems from her close friendship with Nicole Garnett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School. Notre Dame's religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore, and Garnett has publicly supported the school. 'I'm obviously disappointed at the result, but the order has no precedential weight,' Garnett said in a statement. 'The question whether barring religious charter schools violates the Constitution remains live, and I remain confident that the Court will eventually rule that it does.' Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are run by private organizations and must be open to all students. Its critics warn that the movement would take away taxpayer funding for traditional public schools and instead put those dollars toward religious education. 'The entire survival of the public school system as a nonsectarian institution in this country, a 250-year-old proposition, is at risk,' Columbia Law School professor James Liebman said. Barrett's specific reasoning for sitting out remains unclear, as the justices have acquaintances and friends who regularly participate before the court. But her recusal was celebrated by watchdogs that have pushed for stronger ethical standards at the Supreme Court. 'Today's deadlock shows the justices have it within them to exercise ethical leadership, even if it leads to results some might deem less than supreme,' Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, said in a statement. It leaves open the possibility Barrett could participate in a future, similar case that deals with a different school and with which the conservative justice has no conflict. 'From an institutional and an ethical perspective, it is far better that Justice Barrett sat out this case due to her conflict than exercise a purported 'duty to sit,' which would've caused an air of bias to hang over it. The religious charter school issue will undoubtedly return to the court, and we'll know Justice Barrett's views soon enough,' Roth continued. Supporters of St. Isidore are hoping Thursday's decision is not the end of the road. 'We are exploring other options for offering a virtual Catholic education to all persons in the state,' Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley and Tulsa Bishop David Konderla, whose dioceses formed the school, said in a joint statement. 'While the Supreme Court's order is disappointing for educational freedom, the 4-4 decision does not set precedent, allowing the court to revisit this issue in the future,' said Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jim Campbell, who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of Oklahoma's charter school board. Even those who were pleased that the court did not sign off on St. Isidore acknowledge this will not be the end to the issue. 'It would be better, of course, if we would have had the certainty of a 5-3 decision. But maybe another case will come before the court at some point. But, for today, and for next school year, and for the foreseeable future, charter schools will continue to operate on public schools as they always were,' said Starlee Coleman, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Liebman, who filed an amicus brief in the case opposing St. Isidore, noted the case was part of a push happening all over the country to establish publicly funded religious charter schools. 'It didn't work out as they hoped,' Liebman said. 'But they will certainly generate a new case, or many new cases, and those cases will come back to the Supreme Court, and so the issue will certainly be kept front and center.' The case entered the religious liberty sphere advocates have been trying to break open in public schools at the Supreme Court for years. At the crux of the dispute is whether schools such as St. Isidore should legally be considered a state actor, like an ordinary public school. The Supreme Court has held that states may require their public schools be secular. But the school pointed to previous cases the Supreme Court decided in Maine, Montana and Missouri, which prohibited the states from blocking religious schools' eligibility for grant programs for private schools. Jipping said the argument fell flat as this case didn't 'line up clearly' with court precedent, and this instance was 'a little unusual to try to, well, to bring to the Supreme Court.' 'I do think also this decision and this case suggests that the better way to provide alternatives to parents, for parents to the traditional public schools is for states to expand their school choice programs,' he added.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A Split Supreme Court Says Oklahoma Can't Have a Religious Charter School
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that Oklahoma cannot allow the creation of a religious charter school. The deadlocked 4–4 ruling kept a lower court's previous decision in place without explaining the justices' rationale. The case stems from a plan to allow the creation of a public Catholic charter school called St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. While Oklahoma's charter school board initially approved the school in 2023, the state's attorney general asked the state Supreme Court to intervene. Both sides made arguments that appeal to religious freedom. The state argued that it would violate the Establishment Clause to allow a religious school to receive public funds and operate as a public school. St. Isidore, on the other hand, argued that a ban on religious charter schools would essentially be religious discrimination. Charter schools are allowed to abide by a wide range of educational philosophies; therefore only targeting religious pedagogy is unfair. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state. "What St. Isidore requests from this Court is beyond the fair treatment of a private religious institution in receiving a generally available benefit," reads the state Supreme Court's 2024 opinion. "It is about the State's creation and funding of a new religious institution violating the Establishment Clause." The case poses tough questions about under which circumstances the state can fund religious institutions—many states, for example, already allow parents to use public money to send their children to private religious schools through school choice programs. Unfortunately, the Court's decision didn't create much clarity. While the 4-4 decision leaves the state Supreme Court's ruling in place, it did not include an explanation from the justices, nor did it reveal how they voted. (Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, likely due to her affiliation with Notre Dame Law School, whose religious liberties legal clinic helped defend the charter school in the case.) This most recent deadlock at the Supreme Court shows just how murky debates over where religious discrimination ends and religious establishment begins can be. "This is a rock-and-a-hard-place situation for the Supreme Court," Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, wrote for Reason last month. "Rule against St. Isidore, and discrimination against religion wins. Rule for it, and dangerous government entanglement will ensue." The post A Split Supreme Court Says Oklahoma Can't Have a Religious Charter School appeared first on
