Supreme Court Weighs Religious Charter School Funding Case

Yesterday at 8:37 pm

2956 posts

Supreme Court Weighs Religious Charter School Funding Case \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Chief Justice John Roberts holds a potential swing vote in a major Supreme Court case over whether public funds can support a religious charter school in Oklahoma. The court appeared sharply divided after arguments. A tie vote would leave lower court rulings intact but unresolved nationwide.

Quick Looks

Case Focus: Public funding of religious charter school in Oklahoma
Key School: St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School
Roberts Role: Swing vote in deeply divided Supreme Court
Barrett Recusal: Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate
Arguments Heard: More than two hours of cultural and constitutional debate
Opponents Say: School blurs line between church and state
Supporters Say: Exclusion based on religion is discriminatory
Wider Impact: Decision could reshape charter school laws nationwide

Deep Look

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to make a potentially transformative decision on the future of public education and religious liberty in a case that could fundamentally reshape how charter schools are defined and funded in America. At the center of this constitutional clash is St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, an Oklahoma-based online K–12 institution approved to receive public funding while explicitly aiming to evangelize students in the Catholic faith.

What makes this case historic is not just the subject matter — the intersection of religion, education, and public funding — but the possibility that it could dismantle long-standing interpretations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits government endorsement of religion. At the same time, it tests how far the Court will go in upholding the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits discrimination against religious entities.

The outcome may hinge on Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court’s ideological center in a case where the remaining justices appear locked in a 4-4 split. During more than two hours of oral arguments, Roberts gave mixed signals. While he has authored previous rulings that expanded the rights of religious institutions to access public benefits, he also raised concerns about the “comprehensive” role the state plays in charter schools, possibly indicating unease about funding a school that openly integrates religious instruction into its mission.

The Legal Background

Charter schools are publicly funded but independently operated schools that exist outside of traditional public school systems. While they are subject to state curriculum standards and non-discrimination laws, they enjoy flexibility in hiring, instructional style, and school governance. In Oklahoma — like in 45 other states and the District of Columbia — charter schools are explicitly designated as public schools under law.

That designation is crucial. If charter schools are public by legal and operational standards, then a religious charter school could raise serious concerns about state endorsement of religion, especially since its operations would be funded by taxpayer dollars. This is the argument advanced by opponents of St. Isidore, including Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who has sued to stop the school’s launch, warning that it would violate the Establishment Clause.

On the other side are proponents of the school — including Governor Kevin Stitt and Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters — who argue that excluding St. Isidore based on its religious identity is discriminatory. Their argument is rooted in a string of recent Supreme Court decisions authored by Roberts, including Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017), Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), and Carson v. Makin (2022). In those rulings, the Court held that religious schools cannot be excluded from generally available public benefit programs simply because of their religious character.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed this logic in oral arguments, asserting that the state should not “treat [the school] worse because [it’s] religious.” Kavanaugh and other conservatives emphasized that this case is about equal treatment — not special treatment — for religious institutions.

But the liberal justices strongly disagreed. Justice Elena Kagan emphasized that charter schools are, in both structure and function, indistinguishable from traditional public schools, and as such must remain secular. She warned that allowing religious instruction in such institutions would open the door to a nationwide dismantling of public education’s constitutional neutrality.

The Barrett Recusal

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case without explanation — a notable absence given her usual alignment with the Court’s conservative bloc. Barrett, a former professor at Notre Dame Law School, is a close associate of Nicole Garnett, a leading advocate for religious charter schools and advisor to the St. Isidore initiative. Barrett’s recusal leaves the Court with only eight justices, increasing the possibility of a deadlock.

If Roberts were to side with the liberal justices, the Court would likely split 4-4. Such a tie would uphold the lower court ruling from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which found the funding arrangement unconstitutional — but it would not establish binding national precedent, leaving the broader question unsettled for other states.

National Implications for Charter Schools

St. Isidore had planned to open in the fall of 2023 with an initial enrollment of 200 students. Its mission statement includes a goal to evangelize children and offer Catholic religious instruction — a direct break from the secular model required of traditional public schools.

Opponents, including education equity advocates and secular groups, argue that funding religious charter schools could:

Drain resources from secular public schools.
Encourage widespread adoption of faith-based charter models.
Undermine constitutional church-state separation.
Create legal chaos for charter oversight laws across dozens of states.

Supporters, including faith-based organizations and Republican-led states, see the case as a civil rights issue, contending that banning religious groups from public programs infringes upon their First Amendment rights. Lawyer James Campbell, representing Oklahoma’s charter school board, argued that excluding religious perspectives from the charter ecosystem “deems religion the wrong kind of diversity.”

The case arrives amid a broader push by conservative lawmakers to bring religion back into public education. Louisiana recently mandated that the Ten Commandments be displayed in classrooms, and Oklahoma has encouraged public schools to include the Bible as instructional material — measures that have sparked national legal challenges.

The stakes of this case are high: a ruling in favor of St. Isidore could unleash a new wave of publicly funded religious charter schools, triggering nationwide policy changes, and potentially redrawing the constitutional boundaries between church and state.

A ruling against St. Isidore, meanwhile, would preserve the existing understanding that charter schools must remain secular — at least for now — but it would leave the broader issue unresolved if decided in a 4-4 split.

What’s Next

As the justices deliberate, the education community, legal scholars, religious organizations, and civil liberties groups await a potentially precedent-shaping ruling. The decision is expected before the Court’s term ends in late June or early July 2025.

Chief Justice Roberts’ final position will be critical — not only for Oklahoma students, but for the national legal framework governing what qualifies as “public” education in America.