The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear a pivotal case that could potentially transform the landscape of American education, especially in the realms of state funding and school choice.
This case centers around religious charter schools, a topic that has ignited passionate discussions across the country.
Background on the Case
On January 24, the Court decided to review two related appeals involving the establishment of a state-funded Catholic virtual charter school in Oklahoma.
This comes in light of a recent ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which asserted that the proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, backed by the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa, would violate both state and federal constitutional principles due to its funding structure.
Oral arguments are likely to take place in late April, with a decision expected by the end of June or early July, according to the Supreme Court’s established briefing schedule.
Support and Opposition
A significant point of interest is the absence of Justice Amy Coney Barrett from the decision to take up this case, suggesting she may recuse herself.
While she hasn’t publicly clarified her reasons, her past role on the faculty of the University of Notre Dame Law School—an institution involved in representing the Catholic proponents of this charter school—implies a potential conflict of interest.
Should Barrett recuse herself, the Court would operate with only eight justices, meaning any tie vote would simply maintain the lower court’s ruling without creating a legal precedent.
Notably, previous similar cases, such as Carson v. Makin in 2022, were resolved with a wider margin.
Supporters of the St. Isidore initiative have vigorously championed its establishment in Oklahoma and beyond over the past two years.
They argue that recent rulings from the Supreme Court have expanded the permissible use of state funds for private religious organizations, claiming that a virtual religious charter school should not be excluded from state support purely based on its religious affiliation.
They interpret the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause as a protection against states denying funding that is accessible to other schools simply because of their religious nature.
This argument was strongly reiterated in their appeal to the Supreme Court, which highlighted the unfair treatment faced by St. Isidore within Oklahoma’s legal framework.
The case, formally known as St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond, together with the related appeal Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, has generated substantial legal discourse.
The state charter board referenced prior decisions by the Supreme Court that have historically prohibited states from denying public funding benefits to religious institutions solely based on their religious identity.
Legal Arguments and Implications
Conversely, Oklahoma’s Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond argues that permitting a religious charter school to operate would contravene the state constitution’s requirement for public schools to remain free from any sectarian influence.
Despite this contention, the previous charter school board approved St. Isidore’s operations, projecting a launch in July 2024 with an enrollment of 400 to 500 students, potentially drawing approximately $2.5 million in state educational funding.
However, legal challenges obstructed these plans.
Drummond subsequently appealed the matter to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which ruled against St. Isidore, citing both state and federal constitutional issues.
The court emphasized that, despite being a charter school, St. Isidore was essentially an extension of the Catholic Church, warning that endorsing the charter could threaten the religious freedoms of Oklahomans.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court cautioned that funding a religious charter school would blur the lines between church and state engagement, possibly breaching the First Amendment’s prohibition against government establishment of religion.
Furthermore, the justices dismissed the argument that recent Supreme Court decisions favoring religious schools granted St. Isidore and its prospective students a constitutional right to state funding.
In his briefs, Attorney General Drummond presented several arguments against the Supreme Court’s involvement, asserting that the state court’s ruling was sound and raising concerns that deciding this case would do little to clarify the status of charter schools as public or private entities in other jurisdictions.
He received support from a brief issued by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, which underscored the distinctive characteristics of public charter schools as collaborative entities established with the state, endowed with specific rights and responsibilities.
Nevertheless, St. Isidore and the state charter board are bolstered by amicus briefs from prominent figures, including Oklahoma’s Republican Governor Kevin Stitt, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters, and a coalition of nine Republican-led states alongside various conservative organizations.
As the Supreme Court gears up to hear this critical case, a flurry of additional amicus briefs is expected to arrive ahead of the oral arguments scheduled for late April.
Source: Edweek