Latest news with #St.IsidoreofSevilleCatholicVirtualSchool
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
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Split Supreme Court blocks Oklahoma's Catholic charter school − but future cases could hinge on whether charters are, at their core, public or private
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 is an updated version of an article originally published on Feb. 27, 2025. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Preston Green III, University of Connecticut and Suzanne Eckes, University of Wisconsin-Madison Read more: Trump treats laws as obstacles, not limits − and the only real check on his rule-breaking can come from political pressure Birthright citizenship case at Supreme Court reveals deeper questions about judicial authority to halt unlawful policies Finding objective ways to talk about religion in the classroom is tough − but the cost of not doing so is clear Preston Green III is affiliated with the National Education Policy Center. Suzanne Eckes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court deadlock leaves in place ruling blocking nation's first religious charter school
The Supreme Court split evenly Thursday in a high-profile challenge over the nation's first religious charter school, leaving in place a ruling from Oklahoma's top court that found the proposed Catholic school unconstitutional. The 4-4 split was made possible because conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case. Though she did not explain her decision, the former University of Notre Dame law professor had multiple ties to the attorneys representing the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. Religious groups had won a series of opinions from the conservative majority in recent years allowing public funding to be spent on religious education and programming. Critics said a win for the school in this case could have vastly expanded the availability of taxpayer funds for religious schools or, alternatively, pushed states to back away or rethink charter school programs. Consistent with its usual practice, the high court issued a brief, unsigned order noting only that it had divided equally. The Supreme Court last split 4-4 in 2022 in a far more technical case dealing with when locomotives must be inspected under federal law. Evenly split decisions do not set precedent, so the religious groups involved in the case will be able to bring another case. In an unusual political twist, Oklahoma's Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, sued to block the school's creation. In a social media post on Thursday, Drummond said he was 'proud to have fought against this potential cancer in our state.' Drummond said he would continue 'protecting our Christian values and defending religious liberty.' Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, called the outcome 'disappointing for educational freedom.' The religious law group had argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the board that approved the charter school. 'The US Supreme Court has been clear that when the government creates programs and invites groups to participate, it can't single out religious groups for exclusion, and we will continue our work to protect this vital freedom for parents and students,' Campbell said. The court did not indicate how the justices voted – and oral arguments are not always an accurate predictor. But when the court heard the case in late April, Chief Justice John Roberts, in particular, asked sharp questions of both sides and appeared to be leaving his options on a decision open. Three of the court's conservatives appeared to support the creation of the school, while the court's three liberal justices seemed opposed to it. Charter schools – privately run but publicly funded – serve 3.8 million students in the US, offering an alternative to traditional public schools that are intended to be more innovative and less bound by state regulations. The concept took off in the 1990s and, by the 2023 school year, there were some 8,000 charter schools operating nationwide. The law in Oklahoma, as in most states, deems the schools to be public. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt and the state's former attorney general, John O'Connor, both Republicans, supported the school's creation. But when Drummond took office in 2023, he withdrew support for the school and ultimately sued to stop its approval. The state's top court sided with Drummond last year, holding that the school violated the First Amendment's establishment clause. Yet the US Supreme Court has decided a series of appeals in recent years through a different lens: The government doesn't have to open public programs to private entities, the majority has ruled. But if it chooses to do so, it cannot exclude religious entities from taking part. Most recently, the court in 2022 barred Maine from excluding religious schools from a public tuition assistance program that allows parents to use vouchers to send their children to public or private schools. In a 6-3 decision, the court held that excluding religious schools from the tuition program violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause. 'The fact that the Court split 4-4 in this case, with Justice Barrett recused, is not especially surprising,' said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. 'The surprise is that the Court had agreed to take this case up, with Justice Barrett recused, in the first place. That had led some folks to wonder if Chief Justice Roberts might be willing to join the other four Republican appointees in favor of public funding for religious charter schools. Today's affirmance without an opinion suggests that he isn't, at least for now.' Gabe Roth, who leads a Supreme Court watchdog group called Fix the Court, praised Barrett's decision to recuse. '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,' Roth said. '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,' he said. This story has been updated with additional details.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court derails taxpayer-funded Catholic school in major First Amendment case
Oklahoma won't be able to open the country's first-ever taxpayer-funded religious public charter school after a surprise tie from the Supreme Court. A 4-4 decision, with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing, avoids a major ruling on First Amendment protections and the separation of church and state. There was no written decision. A single-page announcement of the court's tie did not note which justices voted in support or against the state. The court did not explain Barrett's recusal, but the Donald Trump-appointed justice has ties with Notre Dame Law School, where she earned her law degree. The law school's religious liberty clinic represents the charter school in this case. A lack of a decision means lower court decisions against the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School will stand, with the school violating the Constitution and state law. 'The Supreme Court's stalemate safeguards public education and upholds the separation of church and state,' according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State president Rachel Laser. 'Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and serve all students,' she added. 'St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which planned to discriminate against students, families, and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion, cannot operate as a public charter school. A religious public school would be an abject violation of religious freedom.' The school, backed by Oklahoma's Republican Governor Kevin Stitt, triggered a high-profile legal battle to decide whether public funds can be used to create religious schools, setting up a major test to the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prevents the government from endorsing any religion, as well as the free exercise clause, which bars religious discrimination. Oklahoma's schools, under the direction of controversial superintendent Ryan Walters, have emerged as a testing ground for a growing movement to integrate religion and conservative politics into public education. Last year, Oklahoma's highest court said the school's contract would 'create a slippery slope and what the framers' warned against — the destruction of Oklahomans' freedom to practice religion without fear of governmental intervention.' The school is an 'instrument of the Catholic church, operated by the Catholic church, and will further the evangelizing mission of the Catholic church in its educational programs,' state justices wrote. A decision on Oklahoma's proposal follows a wave of attempts from Republican lawmakers and conservative special interest groups to move public funds into religious education, dovetailing with efforts within the Trump administration and across the country to let families use taxpayer funds to send their children to private school. In 2023, the nation's highest court ruled that the state of Maine cannot exclude private Christian schools from a taxpayer-funded school voucher program that helps students attend private schools, which critics feared could have broader implications over whether the government is obligated to support religious institutions on the same level as private ones. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in that case warned that the Supreme Court 'continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.' 'The consequences of the Court's rapid transformation of the Religion Clauses must not be understated,' she wrote at the time.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court splits 4-4, blocking first religious charter school in Oklahoma
The Supreme Court dealt an unexpected blow Thursday to the conservative drive for religious charter schools, with the justices splitting 4-4 and unable to rule in a case from Oklahoma that had the effect of blocking a proposed new Catholic charter school. If upheld, it would have been the nation's first tax-funded, church-run charter school. In recent years, charter schools have proven popular with parents both in major cities and in rural areas, and their numbers would surely have grown if churches or religious groups were free to operate these schools. The Supreme Court has six conservatives, all of whom were raised as Catholics. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts has written opinions ruling it was unconstitutional discrimination to exclude religious schools from a state's program of vouchers or tuition subsides for children attending private schools. Religious-liberty advocates appealed to the Supreme Court last year arguing that it was also unconstitutional to exclude churches from sponsoring a state-funded charter school. But they fell one vote short of majority that could have changed schools nationwide. Read more: Supreme Court may allow church-run, publicly funded charter schools across the nation Justice Amy Coney Barrett had announced in advance she would not participate in the decision. A former Notre Dame law professor, she was a close friend of law professor Nicole Garnett, who led the drive for faith-based charter schools. The chief justice sounded uncertain during the oral argument in late April. In the past, he had said states may not discriminate against religious groups, but Oklahoma's law applied only to public schools, not private ones that were religious. Defenders of church-state separation had argued that charter schools by law were public, not "sectarian" or religious. They urged the court to uphold the laws as written. Four other conservative justices had signaled they would vote to allow the religious charter school. On Thursday, the court issued a one-line decision in the Oklahoma case after hearing arguments last month. "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court," and it did not disclose how the eight justices voted. But Roberts was the only conservative who voiced doubt. The case had also divided officials in Oklahoma. The Catholic bishops of Tulsa and Oklahoma proposed to operate St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, and they applied to have it become a state-funded charter school. Read more: Supreme Court will decide if religious schools may be funded as public charters A divided state board approved the request. But the state's attorney general, Gentner Drummond, sued and argued the state constitution did not allow for public funds to be spent for churches or the teaching of religion. The state supreme court agreed and blocked the establishment of the new charter school. Lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom appealed to the Supreme Court and argued the state's decision violated the 1st Amendment's protection for the "free exercise" of religion. Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, applauded the outcome. 'The Supreme Court's stalemate safeguards public education and upholds the separation of church and state," she said. "Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and serve all students. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which planned to discriminate against students, families, and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion, cannot operate as a public charter school." While Thursday's split decision is a major setback for religious rights advocates, it does not finally settle the issue of religious charter schools. It's possible, for example, that Justice Barrett may participate in a future case. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
