Supreme Court blocks creation of religious public charter school
May 22 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court decided Thursday that the state of Oklahoma will not be permitted to create the first-ever religious public charter school with a deadlocked decision only a sentence in length.
The judges ended up in a 4-4 tie as Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case.
The decision, without a majority, sets no precedent and therefore leaves the question of legality in regard to whether religious schools can take part in taxpayer-funded state charter school programs unanswered.
It also means that the previous decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that denied a proposal by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to launch an online Catholic school that would have been funded by taxpayers still stands.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in June of 2024 that "Under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school. As such, a charterschool must be nonsectarian."
The St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, created by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa in 2023, had said that as state funding for charter schools is generally made available to qualified organizations, the state could not discriminate based on religion.
"A ruling that Oklahoma's charter-school law unconstitutionally discriminates against religion would upend the federal [Charter Schools Program] and charter-school laws nationwide, sowing chaos and confusion for millions of charter-school students," the state Supreme Court said in its ruling.
Justice Barrett did not publicly explain her recusal, but it could be related to her ties to Notre Dame Law School, whose religious liberty clinic represents St Isidore.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond responded to the Supreme Court's decision in an X post Thursday.
"The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of my position that we should not allow taxpayer funding of radical Islamic schools here in Oklahoma. I am proud to have fought against this potential cancer in our state, and I will continue upholding the law, protecting our Christian values and defending religious liberty," Drummond said.
Gentner's reference to "radical Islamic schools" is a callback to his statement made in June of 2024 when the state Supreme Court made its ruling, when he said that "by preventing the State from sponsoring any religion at all," it would assure Oklahomans " that our tax dollars will not fund the teachings of Sharia Law or even Satanism."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
30 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Firearm death rate for children increased most in N.H., declined most in R.I. since 2010, study finds
Advertisement The most gun-friendly states were passing more liberalizing legislation, while the stricter states adopted more restrictions, according to Faust. The study looked at 49 states with sufficient data, excluding Hawaii because of inadequate data due to small numbers. Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up Given those changes, Faust said, he and other researchers, including collaborators at Yale School of Medicine, wanted to study the impact of a state's legislative approach on outcomes in different states. 'The question was: Is this a national problem? Is it a state level problem? And if so, is it about the laws?' said Faust. The study divided states into three groups based on an analysis of their gun laws: most permissive, permissive, and strict. Their finding was that the most-permissive states had the biggest increases in mortality, while permissive states had somewhat big increases, and strict states saw no increase. New Hampshire was classified in the most permissive category. Here, the rate started out relatively low compared to other states, the study found, but has doubled since the Supreme Court ruling. Advertisement Nationally, firearms are the leading cause of death for children and adolescents. But outcomes from one state to another varied widely, according to the study. 'I was horrified for some people, but reassured for others,' Faust said. 'You can have a Second Amendment, but have reasonable safety policies that make it so people can exercise their rights without having any untoward effect on the safety of our communities.' Nationally, the study found only four states in which there was a statistically significant decline in childhood firearm mortality after McDonald v Chicago: California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island. All of them fell into the strict firearms law group. Among them, Rhode Island was the state with the biggest decrease. 'It's a really important study that shows, one, that permissive firearm laws are associated with greater pediatric firearm death,' said Kelly Drane, research director at Giffords Law Center, a nonprofit that promotes gun violence prevention. 'It shows the benefit of states taking action to protect children.' And, she said, the study highlights how different outcomes are in different states, and how that relates to the strength of their gun laws. 'You can really see how children in some states are much safer, much less likely to die from gun violence than children in other states,' said Drane. But another independent expert, Dr. Cedric Dark, said it's difficult to establish causality, and there are indications in the study that other factors are likely at play beyond the policy changes after 2010. He pointed to a national increase in homicide deaths around 2020. Advertisement 'I think there's something else going on too, especially in that COVID era,' said Dark, who practices emergency medicine and teaches at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas. In 2024, Dark, who is also a gun owner, published a book on gun violence, 'Under The Gun: An ER Doctor's Cure for America's Gun Epidemic.' In his research for the book, Dark said, he found specific policies that are known to save lives, including universal background checks, child access prevention laws, domestic violence restraining orders, and bans on large capacity magazines. 'The main point for me is: What are those policies that states that are least restrictive versus most restrictive have implemented?' he said. Since 2010, New Hampshire has enacted several liberalizing gun laws. In 2011, the 'What we've seen in states that have passed these laws is that homicides increased drastically after Stand Your Ground laws passed, presumably because people are choosing to stand their ground rather than retreat from conflicts as they would have been required to before,' said Drane. Then, in 2017, the state Advertisement The state's gun laws earned it an 'D-' from Giffords Law Center in its But it New Hampshire's baseline rate from 1999 to 2010 was actually quite low compared to other states, at 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people. But from 2010 to 2023, it nearly doubled, up to 0.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Drane said New Hampshire is likely benefiting from its neighbors with stricter gun laws like Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut, which act as a buffer. In contrast, Rhode Island's mortality rate, with its strict gun laws, declined from 1.2 deaths per 100,000 people down to 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people. Massachusetts, classified as a strict state, has a relatively low rate of childhood firearm deaths, and that didn't change significantly in the years after 2010, although it may have diminished slightly. Its rate went from 0.7 deaths per 100,000 to 0.6 deaths per 100,000, although the change wasn't statistically significant. The study classified Vermont as a permissive state, and its rates rose from 1.1 deaths per 100,000 to 1.8 deaths per 100,000, but the change was not statistically significant. Amanda Gokee can be reached at
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Travel Ban Reinstated By Trump With Mostly Muslim Countries
President Donald J. Trump, citing national security concerns, has reinstated and expanded the controversial nationality-based travel ban first introduced during his initial term. The new ban, formalized in a Presidential Proclamation that came into effect on Monday, June 9, 2025, suspends the entry of nationals from 19 countries, primarily targeting Muslim-majority and African nations. The proclamation fully suspends immigrant and nonimmigrant visa issuance to nationals of 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It imposes partial restrictions on B-1/B-2 tourist visas and F, M, and J student and exchange visas for nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Exceptions apply to green card holders, dual nationals, certain special immigrant visa holders, athletes in international competitions, and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The administration relies on a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the president to suspend the entry of any class of noncitizens deemed 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' That authority was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which ruled 5-4 that President Trump's third version of the travel ban was constitutional, emphasizing executive deference on immigration and national security. But critics argue that this expanded ban perpetuates discriminatory intent, noting the disproportionate impact on Muslim and African nations and the invocation of Trump's 2024 campaign pledge to 'restore the travel ban and keep radical Islamic terrorists out.' Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, predicts court challenges but warns that they may fail under the current precedent. 'Even if this expansion is legal, it is not good policy,' he said. 'Families will be separated, and we are not necessarily safer.' The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the order 'ideologically motivated,' 'unnecessary,' and 'overbroad,' criticizing its chilling effect on lawful travel, academic exchange, and humanitarian reunification. Legal scholars have started to question the constitutionality of this policy. More specifically, they contend that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits governments from denying equal legal protection, while the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids favouring or disfavoring any religion. Critics argue that Trump's policy, which targets specific nations commonly associated with certain religions, risks violating both clauses by enabling discrimination based on nationality and faith. Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished national origin quotas to prevent such bias. By reinstating restrictions linked to religious or national identity, opponents claim the policy mirrors discriminatory practices that the law aimed to eliminate. Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, noted: 'Blanket nationality bans have never demonstrated any meaningful national security value. This ban hurts our economy and punishes immigrants who qualify to come legally.' According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) 'In total, just under 162,000 immigrant visas and temporary work, study, and travel visas were issued in fiscal year 2023 to nationals of the affected countries in the now banned visa categories, according to the Migration Policy Institute.' Nationals from the banned countries represent more than 475 million people globally. Beyond family separations, the ban may deter students, scientists, and health professionals at a time when the U.S. is experiencing labor shortages in STEM and healthcare. Universities like Harvard have expressed alarm at the targeting of international students, as the administration simultaneously suspended new visas for foreign scholars at select institutions, further stoking fears of ideological purges in academia. The 2025 travel ban echoes policies from Trump's first term and extends their scope. The first 'Muslim ban' of 2017 was repeatedly struck down until a more narrowly tailored version survived judicial review. Today's ban, while more procedurally refined, raises the same fundamental concern: are Americans safer by denying entry based on birthplace? Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the 1965 INA famously stated that 'the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system' would never return. Critics now argue that President Trump has revived that very shadow, using presidential proclamations instead of legislative quotas. 'This is not national security—it's national scapegoating,' said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. 'It undermines constitutional values and stigmatizes entire populations for political gain.' The legality of the 2025 travel ban reinstated as it is may pass muster under Trump v. Hawaii, but its morality, logic, and long-term consequences remain in question. As lawsuits mount and civil rights groups prepare their defences, the nation must decide: do we protect ourselves by shutting doors or by standing firm in our values of openness, equality, and due process?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Spain's top prosecutor poised to face trial over leak accusation
By David Latona and Emma Pinedo MADRID (Reuters) -Spain's Supreme Court is set to put the prosecutor general on trial over allegations of leaking confidential information in a tax fraud case involving the partner of a leading opposition figure, according to a court document seen by Reuters on Monday. The case is at the heart of frictions between Spain's centre-left national government and the right-wing leader of the Madrid region, Isabel Diaz Ayuso, with each side accusing the other of corruption. The investigative judge's decision that the case against Prosecutor General Alvaro Garcia Ortiz warrants trial is unprecedented since Spain's return to democracy in 1978. The government appointed Garcia Ortiz, 57, to the post in August 2022. A member of a progressive jurists' association, he has a background in environmental law and led the public prosecution in the high-profile Prestige oil spill. In his writ, judge Angel Hurtado said there was enough evidence to proceed against Garcia Ortiz on accusations of sharing with media the contents of an email exchange between the lawyer representing Ayuso's boyfriend, Alberto Garcia Amador, and the regional prosecutor's office. Hurtado's decision can still be appealed. In the leaked email, Garcia Amador's attorney offered his client's admission to two counts of tax fraud in exchange for a negotiated settlement with Madrid prosecutors to avoid jail penalties. Garcia Amador later testified in court that he had no knowledge of the proposed deal. Hurtado, who launched the case last October, said the email held sensitive personal information, protected under lawyer-prosecutor confidentiality, and claimed that Garcia Ortiz acted under instructions from Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez's office in order to "win the narrative". Sanchez said at the time that the prosecutor was "doing his job, going after delinquents". The judge said Garcia Ortiz had erased data from his mobile devices during the investigation, which he labelled an act of "obstruction of justice". Garcia Ortiz has refused to resign and repeatedly defended his innocence and impartiality. His office said in a statement on Monday he would "continue defending the actions and integrity of the institution he represents". Justice Minister Felix Bolanos said he had full confidence in Garcia Ortiz and called him an "exemplary public servant".
