
Supreme Court Seems Inclined to Green-Light First Publicly Funded Religious Charter School
The U.S. Supreme Court on April 30 seemed inclined to overturn an Oklahoma court ruling denying authorization for the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself and did not participate in the case known as Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. The respondent is Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma's attorney general.
The school concerned is the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School (SISVC), a K–12 school in Oklahoma City approved by the school board.
A charter school is a school that accepts funding from the government but operates independently outside of the established state school system.
The school's
'A sponsor may not authorize a charter school or program that is affiliated with a nonpublic sectarian school or religious institution,' the statute reads. The charter school has to be 'nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations,' it states.
Related Stories
1/24/2025
2/1/2025
The petition states that the Oklahoma Constitution provides that the state should maintain a 'system of public schools ... free from sectarian control.'
In 2023, Catholic nonprofit corporation St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School Inc. was founded by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to operate the charter school, according to the petition. The school offers 'a learning opportunity for students who want and desire a quality Catholic education, but for reasons of accessibility to a brick-and-mortar location or due to cost, cannot currently make it a reality.'
The board approved the school's application in June 2023. As one board member said at the time, the board had to approve the application because failing to do so would violate the U.S. Constitution's free exercise clause, which all board members had sworn to uphold, according to the petition.
Drummond sued in October 2023, asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to cancel the school's contract and declare it violates the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause, state law, and the state constitution.
Drummond argued that if the authorization were not rescinded, the state would receive 'requests to directly fund all petitioning sectarian groups,' and this could include 'extreme sects of the Muslim faith to establish a taxpayer funded public charter school teaching Sharia Law.'
'[This could] pave the way for proliferation of the direct public funding of religious schools whose tenets are diametrically opposed by most Oklahomans,' the petition reads.
On June 25, 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against the school, ordering the board to cancel the contract and finding that the school was a governmental entity. Because the school was deemed a state actor, denying the school charter status did not contradict the free exercise clause, the court determined.
The state court also found that St. Isidore's contract with the board violated the Oklahoma Constitution's prohibition against 'using public money for the benefit or support of any religious institution.'
During the April 30 oral argument, the school board's attorney, James Campbell, told the justices that Oklahoma law allows private organizations to found charter schools and gives them 'broad autonomy over their mission, curriculum, and operations.'
He said state law 'categorically bars religious groups and programs' from founding such schools, and this violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, as the U.S. Supreme Court has held three times in the past eight years.
The court has found that 'when a state creates a public program and invites private actors, it can't exclude people or groups because they're religious,' said Campbell, who is also chief legal counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom.
The school board 'is committed to this principle of religious neutrality,' the lawyer said.
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned an argument made by Drummond's attorney, Gregory Garre.
Is the test here whether the school is 'a creation and creature of the state?' Roberts asked.
In previous rulings, the court held that 'under the First Amendment, you couldn't exclude people because of their religious beliefs,' he said.
Garre said, 'I think the creation point goes to the government entity point.'
Justice Samuel Alito asked Garre if a charter school could put books on elementary school curricula that 'have lots of LGBTQ-plus characters [and] same sex couples' and 'send the message that this is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle?'
Can they 'tell the little kids' that 'your parents may say you're a boy or a girl, but that doesn't mean you really are a boy or a girl?' the justice asked.
Garre said the school could not do that because Oklahoma law forbids 'the teaching of gender studies or race in public schools, traditional public schools, and charter schools.'
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Biden Weaponized Law Enforcement Against Catholics
Even the initial story about the FBI targeting Catholics for suspicion and surveillance was bad enough. In December 2023, the House Judiciary Committee published a detailed report about how the FBI specifically identified traditional Catholics as potential domestic terror threats. The House report revealed the shocking finding that the Richmond, Virginia, office of the FBI suspected traditional Catholics "as violent extremists and proposed opportunities for the FBI to infiltrate Catholic churches as a form of 'threat mitigation." In sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate, former FBI Director Christopher Wray was challenged by Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri: "Now we know that, in fact, FBI agents did approach a priest and a choir director to ask them to inform on parishioners." Despite this serious allegation, Wray denied a wider FBI initiative and blamed a localized mistake in Richmond. Well … new information reveals that, at best, FBI Director Wray was playing fast and loose with the truth. At worst, the then-sitting chief law enforcement investigator of America committed perjury when he dishonestly stated that the memo was "a single product by a single field office." Oh, all while completely maligning the largest denomination of Christian believers in the United States. But, alas, the sad story of the FBI targeting Catholics does not end in 2023. New information uncovered by Sen. Charles Grassleys committee reveals that the so-called "Richmond memo" was more like a nationwide all-points-bulletin from FBI brass, informing legions of agents to suspect and investigate faithful parishioners across the land. As CatholicVote describes, "the FBIs anti-Catholic Richmond memo was distributed to more than 1,000 employees in FBI field offices across the country." Sen. Grassleys press release states that a whistleblower "produced at least 13 additional documents and five attachments that used anti-Catholic terminology and relied on information from the radical far-left Southern Poverty Law Center" to target Catholics. Amazingly, such harsh anti-Catholic actions formed a key policy agenda for Joe Biden, a politician who constantly trumpeted his Catholic bona fides and bragged about the rosary he carries in his pocket. Of course, those pronouncements did not stop him from targeting the Little Sisters of the Poor for brutal Department of Justice intimidation when he was vice president. Nor did Joes faith restrain him as president, when he awarded Americas highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, to the late Cecile Richardson, one of the most prolific abortion providers in U.S. history. Unfortunately, Bidens anti-Catholic actions follow a tragic trend of recent decades for Democrats, once the proud home to generations of Catholic voters across America. In fact, Bidens eventual vice president, Kamala Harris, engaged in brazen anti-Catholic bigotry as a U.S. senator in 2018. Harris tried to derail the judicial nomination of Brian Buescher simply because the district court nominee dared to belong to the Catholic fraternal charity organization, the Knights of Columbus. I wrote about that prejudice - an unconstitutional religious litmus test - in a December 26, 2018, opinion piece for RealClearPolitics. No wonder that during the 2024 presidential race, then-Sen. JD Vance called the Biden-Harris White House "the most anti-Catholic administration in living memory." Which brings us back to the present day and these newfound facts about the breadth and scope of the anti-Catholicism of Bidens FBI. This targeting fits within a larger context of the completely unacceptable politicized weaponization of federal law enforcement by people like Biden, Harris, Wray, and former Attorney General Merrick Garland. Sen. Grassley makes it clear that he believes Wray lied under oath. If that allegation is correct, then the Trump-Vance DOJ must charge Wray. In addition, this issue carries great political peril for Democrats and big continued rewards for Republicans. Historically, Catholics decide national elections. For over half a century, the Catholic vote has determined the winner in every election but one (choosing Al Gore over George W. Bush in 2000). In 2024 Trump rolled up an incredible +11% margin among Catholics nationwide, a giant improvement over his tie among Catholics in 2020. In fact, Trump would not have won the popular vote - surprising every "expert" - without his dominant performance among Catholics. So, lets get to the truth, punish the evildoers, and reap the political spoils as well. Steve Cortes is president of the League of American Workers, a populist right pro-laborer advocacy group, and senior political advisor to Catholic Vote. He is a former senior advisor to President Trump and JD Vance, and a former commentator for Fox News and CNN.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Trump travel ban includes 12 nations, partially restricts entry from seven others
Trump travel ban includes 12 nations, partially restricts entry from seven others Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump bans travel from several countries around the world President Donald Trump signed a proclamation that bans travel from 12 countries and restricts seven others. WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump has issued a full travel ban blocking the entry of foreign nationals from 12 countries into the United States, reviving a controversial policy from his first term that is likely to be challenged in court. Trump cited "national security risks" posed by citizens of the targeted nations, which include several Middle Eastern and African countries, in a June 4 proclamation he signed imposing the ban. He also partially restricted the entry of foreign nationals from seven other nations. The restrictions are scheduled to go into effect on June 9. The ban prohibits entry into the U.S. of foreign nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Trump issued partial travel suspensions for foreign nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Trump presidency: Marco Rubio says US will revoke visas from Chinese students, add new restrictions In videotaped remarks from the Oval Office, Trump pointed to last weekend's fiery assault on pro-Jewish demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado, carried out by suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman, a native of Egypt who came to the U.S. on a tourist visa in late 2022 and stayed after the visa expired. "The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstayed their visas," Trump said. "We don't want them." Egypt is not among the countries facing new restrictions despite Trump invoking the attack, which the White House has blamed on the Biden administration's immigration policies. Trump's travel ban: A timeline look throughout his first presidency Who faces a travel ban? The move comes after the Trump administration has worked aggressively to deport immigrants who are in the United States unlawfully, halted the government's refugee resettlement program, and last week announced plans to "aggressively" revoke visas of Chinese students. The ban resembles similar actions Trump took during his first term to bar the entry of foreign nationals from several predominantly Muslim countries. The restrictions do not apply to visas that have already been granted, lawful permanent residents, certain athletes, immediate family members of current visa holders, and other classes of individuals for whom the administration granted exceptions. Travelers react to the latest travel ban from President Trump "Pros and cons." Travelers in Los Angeles responded to the news of President Donald Trump's travel ban impacting nearly 20 countries. "In the 21st century, we've seen one terror attack after another carried out by foreign-visa overstayers from dangerous places. They should not be in our country," Trump said. "We will not let what happened in Europe happen to America." Council on American-Islamic Relations Executive Director Nihad Awad said the government already vets visa applicants extensively. The new order risks separating families, depriving students of educational opportunities and blocking patients from unique medical treatment, he said. "President Trump's new travel ban targeting mostly Muslim and African nations and raising the specter of more vague free speech restrictions is overbroad, unnecessary and ideologically motivated,' Awad said. "Automatically banning students, workers, tourists, and other citizens of these targeted nations from coming to the United States will not make our nation safer." Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said in a post on social media that the antisemitic attack in Boulder shouldn't be used to justify a ban on travel from primarily Muslim-majority countries. 'We'll keep saying it: the Jewish community's legitimate fears and concerns should not (be) exploited to undermine core democratic norms, or otherwise advance discriminatory & unconstitutional policies,' Spitalnick said. 'Doing so only makes Jews – and all communities – less safe.' Rep. Judy Chu, a California Democrat who introduced legislation in February that sought to prevent the Trump administration from banning travel to the U.S. by people of any religious group, lashed out at Trump on X. "Just now, Trump has re-issued his disgusting, bigoted, and Islamophobic travel ban. This goes against our core American values while doing nothing to make us safer. We can do better, we must do better," she said. What travelers need to know: Trump issues new travel ban affecting nearly 20 countries Trump revisits travel bans Trump's first-term travel bans were overturned repeatedly in the courts for apparent religious or racial motivations before being upheld by the Supreme Court. Within hours of the new ban, the International Refugee Assistance Project, a group that sued Trump in 2017, slammed the ban as arbitrary for making exceptions for athletes traveling to the United States for sporting events such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, "while closing the door to ordinary people who've gone through extensive legal processes to enter the United States." "It is yet another shameful attempt by the Trump administration to sow division, fear, and chaos," Stephanie Gee, senior director of U.S. Legal Services, said in a statement. Trump's latest ban follows through on a day-one executive order directing his administration to identify countries throughout the world "for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries." Trump said he evaluated recommendations from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Attorney General Pam Bondi based on foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism goals and largely accepted their recommendations. Factors included whether a county "has a significant terrorist presence within its territory" or a high rate of people overstaying their visas, Trump's order said. The president said the administration also considered a country's "cooperation with accepting back its removable nationals." At one point, the administration looked at slapping as many as 43 countries with restrictions. Egypt was not on either of the draft lists that circulated in March. The president said in the order that Rubio and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller provided him a list on April 9 of countries to consider. The White House did not immediately explain why it took Trump nearly two months after he received the report to take action. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment. "Very simply," Trump said, "we cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States." Contributing: Bart Jansen, USA TODAY Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.