Supreme Court to decide whether states can allow religious public schools

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to evaluate whether Oklahoma can finance a proposed religious charter school, marking a significant case as it would be the first of its kind in the nation. 

 This landmark case will determine if the state of Oklahoma can fund a proposed Catholic charter school, potentially redefining the separation between church and state by permitting the government to establish and directly finance religious schools for the first time. The case is closely monitored as it examines how far the Supreme Court is willing to extend its recent trend of increasing tax dollar support for religious education and expanding the role of religion in public life. 

 The court has already sanctioned government funding for vouchers intended for religious private schools. Proponents argue that allowing funding for religious charter schools—which parents choose to enroll their children in—represents a logical progression. However, charter schools are classified as public institutions, and last year, the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that the proposed religious charter school contravened both state and federal constitutions. The state court asserted that both state and federal laws prohibit public funds from being used to establish a religious organization. In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted 3-2 in favor of St. 

Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would be managed by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa. School officials indicated that the curriculum would integrate religious teachings into all subjects, including math, science, history, and literature. Additionally, they planned to factor religion into hiring decisions; for example, the principal must be Catholic. The Oklahoma justices warned that permitting the school to proceed “would create a slippery slope” leading to what the framers feared—the erosion of Oklahomans’ freedom to practice their religion without governmental interference. Opponents, including the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, echoed this concern in a joint statement on Friday, arguing that a publicly funded religious charter would undermine fundamental constitutional principles. “Oklahoma taxpayers, including our plaintiffs, should not be compelled to finance a religious public school that intends to discriminate against students and staff while indoctrinating students into a single faith. Transforming public schools into Sunday schools would represent a perilous shift for our democracy,” they stated. Supporters of the school contend that a ruling in their favor would provide parents with additional options and emphasize that the ability to exercise religious freedom outweighs concerns regarding the separation of church and state. “Oklahoma parents and children will benefit from having more educational choices rather than fewer,” said Jim Campbell, chief counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the state virtual charter board that approved the school.

Similarly, Oklahoma's state schools superintendent, Ryan Walters, who supports the charter school, framed the situation as a direct confrontation with the secular public education system. “The entire nation is watching Oklahoma to back St. Isidore and put an end to state-sponsored atheism,” he stated. Charter schools receive public funding but are managed privately and are required to follow many regulations that apply to traditional public schools. If the court permits states to directly fund religious charter schools, numerous existing private religious institutions could seek to transition into charter schools and gain access to full government funding, further blurring the line between church and state. 

 Oklahoma law explicitly prohibits charter schools from being sectarian or associated with any religious organization, and the state constitution prohibits the use of public funds, either directly or indirectly, for any religious purposes, including instruction. In 2016, voters rejected a proposal to amend the state constitution, with 57 percent voting against allowing such expenditures. Nevertheless, the archdiocese submitted an application for the new school, aiming to explore the boundaries of current legal interpretations. The state's Republican attorney general filed a lawsuit after the virtual charter board approved the application, arguing that if the school were sanctioned, the government would essentially be overseeing a religious entity. In recent years, religious advocates have successfully pursued cases that have weakened what was once a clear separation between public funding and religious education. In three landmark decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that religious organizations cannot be excluded from taxpayer-funded programs available to others. In a 2017 case, the Supreme Court ruled that a church-operated preschool in Missouri was eligible for a state grant designated for playgrounds. In 2020, the court decided that Montana could include religious schools in a program offering tax incentives for private-school tuition scholarships. In 2023, the court ruled that a Maine voucher program providing state funding for rural students to attend private high schools must also be accessible to religious institutions. Proponents of school choice are advocating for the approval of the Oklahoma religious charter school as a means to provide parents with more educational options. While many states offer vouchers applicable to religious schools, these vouchers often do not cover the entire tuition; charter school expenses are fully funded by tax dollars. The school’s approval was initially contested by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, who presented the case before the state Supreme Court. 

His spokesperson indicated on Friday that his office “looks forward to presenting our arguments before the Supreme Court.” The conservative supermajority has also sought to broaden religious rights in significant rulings in recent terms. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the free speech provisions of the Constitution protect certain businesses from being compelled to serve same-sex couples when a web designer claimed she should not be required to provide such services due to her religious beliefs. During the same term, justices reinforced protections for religious rights in the workplace, siding with a mail carrier who contended he should not be obligated to deliver packages on the Sabbath. In 2022, a divided court found that Washington state discriminated against a football coach who prayed at midfield after a high school football game. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the court's decision regarding this case. 

The order does not provide an explanation for her recusal; however, Barrett taught for many years at Notre Dame Law School, which represents St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School through its religious liberty clinic. The timeline for filing court documents indicates that the case is likely to be heard in late April.

Edit This Article