In Case the Choice World ‘Dreaded,' Justices Appear Open to Religious Charters
With questions that carved out a middle way through a thicket of legal precedents, Chief Justice John Roberts could cast the deciding vote on whether charter schools funded with public dollars can be free to practice religion.
Oklahoma's high court ruled last year that a Catholic charter school — the first such school in the nation — violates state and federal law. Initially, Roberts appeared to agree that the questions presented differ from those in the court's previous opinions about public funds for religious schools.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
'This does strike me as a much more comprehensive involvement,' Roberts said.
Related
But later in the arguments, Roberts indicated that there may be less daylight between those earlier cases and the Oklahoma school. One involved whether a religious school could participate in a program providing playground paving materials. Another focused on whether a Christian school could serve students receiving tax credit scholarships. The debate Wednesday centered on whether the state or the Catholic church created St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School.
He asked Gregory Garre, a former U.S. solicitor general, considered to be one of Roberts' legal 'disciples,' if the test in this case was whether the school was 'a creation and creature of the state.' Garre argued the case for Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican who sued the school and the charter board.
'All of those were,' Roberts said of the earlier cases, 'and we held that under the First Amendment, you couldn't exclude people because of their religious belief.'
With Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recusal, the four remaining conservative — and mostly Catholic — justices were more sympathetic to the school's petition. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned how the state could prevent St. Isidore from opening a charter without running afoul of constitutional protections against religious exclusion.
'All the religious school is saying is 'Don't exclude us on account of our religion,' ' he told Garrre. 'When you have a program that's open to all comers, except religion …that seems like rank discrimination.'
Related
The debate over religious charter schools has captivated — and divided — school choice and religious advocates nationwide since early 2023, when Catholic church leaders in Oklahoma City and Tulsa first asked the state to grant a charter to St. Isidore. The case has rocked the charter sector at a time when many Christian conservatives, emboldened by President Donald Trump's election, have pushed to infuse more biblical teaching into public classrooms.
The scene outside the court, where supporters and opponents alike gathered on the plaza, demonstrated the high stakes surrounding the case.
'Faith flourishes best when it is supported voluntarily,' said Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, president and CEO of Interfaith Alliance and the great grandson of Justice Louis D. Brandeis. 'Will our government endorse one particular faith with taxpayer dollars? We believe the answer must be no.'
Nearby, a black-robed choir from a Virginia Christian school sang hymns and EdChoice, an advocacy organization, organized a rally in support of St. Isidore.
Related
Nicole Stelle Garnett, the Notre Dame law professor who crafted the legal argument that inspired the school's application, took photos with her students and prayed with them before entering the court. Walking through the door, she said, brought back memories of her year as a clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas.
That's when she became friends with Barrett — the reason, many believe, why Barrett recused herself. The two who taught at Notre Dame, were neighbors in South Bend, Indiana, and their children grew up together. Following the arguments, she said she was still processing the debate. But she later issued a statement saying that the court made 'abundantly clear that Oklahoma cannot discriminate against religious organizations in a program that supports privately operated schools.'
As Roberts noted, the court's previous cases on public funds for religious education focused on whether states must include faith-based schools in voucher-like programs. But here, Oklahoma leaders chose to directly fund a school that teaches Catholicism — a leap, many argue, that would violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and clearly entangle government with religion.
'These are state-run institutions,' said Justice Elena Kagan, one of three liberals on the court. 'They give the charter schools a good deal of curricular flexibility, because that's thought to be a good educational thing. But with respect to a whole variety of things, the state is running these schools and insisting upon certain requirements.'
Oklahoma attorney general Drummond, backed by 17 states, made the same argument last year to the state supreme court, parting ways with most of his conservative state's political leaders, who support the school's application. They include Gov. Kevin Stitt, who attended the oral arguments, and state Superintendent Ryan Walters.
Related
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson drew a line between charter schools and the previous cases in which religious groups wanted an equal chance to participate in a state-run program. In this case, the state law requires schools to be non-sectarian, she said.
'As I see it, it's not being denied a benefit that everyone else gets,' she said. 'It's being denied a benefit that no one else gets, which is the ability to create a religious public school.'
Some of the opposition to religious charters comes from unexpected quarters. The libertarian Cato Institute's Neal McCluskey, for example, is a staunch supporter of private school choice. But he warns that allowing explicit religious teaching in charter schools would 'dangerously entangle the state with religion.'
While he thinks a 5-3 ruling for St. Isidore is still a strong possibility, he said, Roberts could return a more narrow ruling that only allows a religious charter when its governing board members are private individuals. That could invite states that don't want religious charter schools to require most board members to be public officials.
As Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested, proponents of religious charter schools may end up with more state control than they want.
'Have you thought about that boomerang effect for charter schools?' he asked.
A ruling in favor of St. Isidore would 'cause uncertainty, confusion and disruption for potentially millions of schoolchildren and families across the country,' Garre told the court.
But the extent of that impact could vary by state.
In Virginia, for example, school districts authorize and have tighter control over charter schools, which makes them more like state actors, said Carol Corbet Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education and a frequent critic of charter schools.
In Ohio, by contrast, nonprofits are among the organizations that can authorize charters, and for-profit companies are involved in running over half of them.
'For years, charters have benefited from being in a nebulous space between public and private,' Burris said. She notes that charter schools, for example, received paycheck protection program loans during the pandemic, but public schools didn't. 'They claim public when it is in their interest, private when it is not. There is a reason that this is the case that the charter world dreaded.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
9 minutes ago
- CBS News
Blue state governors to testify on "sanctuary policies" amid L.A. protests over immigration raids
Washington — Three Democratic governors are defending their responses to the migrant crisis and dispute claims of failing to cooperate with federal authorities, according to prepared remarks that will be delivered Thursday before a House oversight panel. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz are among the witnesses scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on so-called "sanctuary policies". "Let me be clear: Sanctuary policies don't protect Americans. They protect criminal illegal aliens," Oversight Chair James Comer, a Kentucky Republican will say in his opening statement. The governors' appearances come as President Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom remain embroiled in a legal and political standoff over the deployment of the National Guard troops and Marines to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles. Demonstrations have spread to other U.S. cities, including New York and Chicago following a series of deportation raids. "Minnesota is not a sanctuary state," Walz will tell lawmakers. "It is ridiculous to suggest that Minnesota — a state that is over 1,500 miles away from the Southern border and a thousand miles from lawmakers in Washington, D.C. who decide and implement border policy is somehow responsible for a failure of immigration enforcement." The former vice presidential candidate has drawn intense scrutiny not only over immigration policy but also for his handling of social justice protests that broke out in Minneapolis following the death of George Floyd in 2020. Trump administration officials have cited Walz' actions to justify the president's decision to federalize troops in California. While Walz does not appear to directly address the controversy in his testimony, he says he is "disappointed" in the federal government's overall approach. "As governor of Minnesota, it is incumbent on me to use the state's resources to help Minnesota families—not turn those resources over to the administration so they can stage another photo-op in tactical gear or accidentally deport more children without observing due process," Walz is set to say. Ahead of the hearing, the GOP-led panel released a video compilation of various news clips accusing the governors of "shielding" undocumented immigrants and "causing chaos" in their states. A memo from Hochul's office suggested the hearing could be "derailed by wild accusations" and "twisted characterizations" but noted the governor's position is "clear" when it comes to supporting strong borders and comprehensive immigration reform. "New York state cooperates with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in criminal cases," Hochul says. "And our values as New Yorkers demand that we treat those who arrive here in search of a better life with dignity and reject policies that tear law-abiding families apart." Hochul also addresses the influx of more than 220,000 migrants to New York City since early 2022, many of whom were bussed from border states, calling it "an unprecedented humanitarian crisis." "We have responded to this crisis with both compassion and pragmatism," Hochul states."And as a result, we largely prevented what could have become an additional crisis — one of street homelessness and tent cities." Pritzker says Illinois also stepped up to the challenge, and blamed the lack of federal intervention and cooperation from border states for exacerbating the problem. "As governor, my responsibility is to ensure that all Illinoisans feel safe in their homes, their businesses, and their communities," Pritzker is prepared to say. "That is why my administration continued to make significant investments in public safety, even as our resources were strained because of the lack of federal support during the crisis — expanding our state police force and investing in efforts to reduce gun violence." Thursday's session follows a March hearing on sanctuary cities with four Democratic mayors: Eric Adams, of New York, Mike Johnston of Denver, Brandon Johnson of Chicago and Michelle Wu of Boston. Comer launched an investigation in January into "sanctuary jurisdictions", including states, counties or cities, to examine their impact on public safety and federal immigration enforcement. President Trump has vowed to crack down on localities that don't back his immigration agenda. Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security removed its list of sanctuary jurisdictions after several cities challenged the findings.

USA Today
17 minutes ago
- USA Today
Newsom v. Trump heads to court as protests against ICE raids spread: Updates
Newsom v. Trump heads to court as protests against ICE raids spread: Updates Show Caption Hide Caption See how Los Angeles protests intensified over one weekend What started as a small protest over immigration raids on Friday ballooned into large demonstrations throughout the weekend. Here's what happened. Nearly a week after protests over federal immigration enforcement raids first broke out in Los Angeles, a showdown between federal and state officials is expected to land in court on Thursday over whether President Donald Trump can use the military to assist the raids against California leaders' wishes. In the hearing, scheduled for Thursday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco will hear Gov. Gavin Newsom's motion for a temporary restraining order limiting the activities of the 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines Trump deployed in Los Angeles. Newsom has decried the military intervention as an illegal waste of resources and is asking the court to block the troops' participation in law enforcement activities. He ultimately wants the National Guard returned to state control and Trump's actions declared illegal. Downtown Los Angeles remained under a curfew after days of demonstrations against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement led to hundreds of arrests. The protests broke out on June 6 in response to ongoing ICE raids that have sparked fear among immigrant communities. While many protests have been relatively peaceful, some have turned into scenes of chaos as police fired with less lethal munitions, tear gas and flash-bangs to disperse crowds. "If I didn't act quickly on that, Los Angeles would be burning to the ground right now," Trump said at an event at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Wednesday. State and local leaders have disputed Trump's claims, saying the decision has only provoked the unrest, likening the president's actions to "authoritarian regimes." U.S. Northern Command announced on Wednesday that the 700 active-duty Marines had completed their training for the Los Angeles mission, which included de-escalation and crowd control. The Marines were expected to be deployed within 48 hours to protect federal officers and property. National Guard commander Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman said on Wednesday that the troops wouldn't conduct arrests or searches and seizures, but would be authorized to detain protesters temporarily. Protests are planned for 1,800 communities across the country on June 14, the same day Trump holds a military parade in Washington, D.C. For decades, the GOP has claimed most of the symbols of patriotism, including the American flag, but the people protesting Trump, a Republican, say they are the true patriots now. The rallies, named "No Kings Day" to oppose what they see as Trump's power grab, are expected to be the largest and most numerous protests since Trump's second term began, dwarfing the Hands Off protests in early April that drew as many as 1 million Americans to the streets at more than 1,000 rallies. No Kings Day was organized by grassroots groups in cities and towns of all sizes to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary celebration, which is also Trump's 79th birthday and Flag Day. Administration officials insist it is a coincidence that the parade falls on Trump's birthday. Read more here. Contributing: Reuters


Washington Post
21 minutes ago
- Washington Post
House will vote on Trump's request to cut funding for NPR, PBS and foreign aid
WASHINGTON — House Republicans are moving to cut about $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress as President Donald Trump's administration looks to follow through on work by the Department of Government Efficiency when it was overseen by Elon Musk . The package to be voted on Thursday targets foreign aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, as well as thousands of public radio and television stations around the country. Republicans are characterizing the spending as wasteful and unnecessary, but Democrats say the rescissions are hurting the United States' standing in the world. 'Cruelty is the point,' Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said of the proposed spending cuts. The Trump administration is employing a tool rarely used in recent years that allows the president to transmit a request to Congress to cancel previously appropriated funds. That triggers a 45-day clock in which the funds are frozen pending congressional action. If Congress fails to act within that period, then the spending stands. The benefit for the administration of a formal rescissions request is that passage requires only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to get spending bills through that chamber. So, if they stay united, Republicans will be able to pass the measure without any Democratic votes. The administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along. Republicans, sensitive to concerns that Trump's sweeping tax and immigration bill would increase future federal deficits , are anxious to demonstrate spending discipline, though the cuts in the package amount to just a sliver of the spending approved by Congress each year. They are betting the cuts prove popular with constituents who align with Trump's 'America first' ideology as well as those who view NPR and PBS as having a liberal bias. In all, the package contains 21 proposed rescissions. Approval would claw back about $900 million from $10 billion that Congress has approved for global health programs. That includes canceling $500 million for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400 million to address the global HIV epidemic. The Trump administration is also looking to cancel $800 million, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country. About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries. The Republican president has also asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's slated to receive during the next two budget years. About two-thirds of the money gets distributed to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country. The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the Republican measure passes. Those stations provide emergency alerts, free educational programming and high school sports coverage and highlight hometown heroes. Advocacy groups that serve the world's poorest people are also sounding the alarm and urging lawmakers to vote no. 'We are already seeing women, children and families left without food, clean water and critical services after earlier aid cuts, and aid organizations can barely keep up with rising needs,' said Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, a poverty-fighting organization. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said the foreign aid is a tool that prevents conflict and promotes stability but the measure before the House takes that tool away. 'These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world,' McGovern said. 'And at a time when China and Russia and Iran are working overtime to challenge American influence.' Republicans disparaged the foreign aid spending and sought to link it to programs they said DOGE had uncovered. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said taxpayer dollars had gone to such things as targeting climate change, promoting pottery classes and strengthening diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Other Republicans cited similar examples they said DOGE had revealed. 'Yet, my friends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe, seriously, that if you don't use your taxpayer dollars to fund this absurd list of projects and thousands of others I didn't even list, that somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will crumble,' Roy said. 'Well, let's just reject this now.'