logo
Supreme Court majority seems open to religious public charter schools

Supreme Court majority seems open to religious public charter schools

Washington Post30-04-2025

A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared open to allowing the creation of the nation's first public religious charter school in Oklahoma, a blockbuster move that could reshape American education and redraw the boundary between church and state.
A ruling for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School for the first time would allow direct and complete taxpayer funding to establish a faith-based school, sanctioning government sponsorship of a curriculum that calls for students to adhere to Catholic beliefs and the church's religious mission.
The change could have vast — and unpredictable — implications for both parochial, charter and traditional public schools, likely sparking efforts to create similar schools in other states. It would also supercharge a push by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court to give religion new prominence in public life.
During oral argument Wednesday over the legality of St. Isidore, sharp ideological differences emerged among the justices.
While all three liberals expressed deep skepticism about a religious charter school, there was no clear indication that any conservative members of the court would join them in voting against the proposal. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh signaled his support, saying that excluding religious schools from the charter school program 'seems like rank discrimination.'
'Our cases have been very clear,' he said, referring to recent rulings that have expanded when it's permissible to use tax dollars for religious education. 'I think those are some of the most important cases we've had, of saying you can't treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second class in the United States.'
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is almost always in the majority in major cases, asked probing questions of both sides. But Roberts has consistently sided with religious parties to expand the role of faith in public life.
A decision is expected by summer.
The court's liberals pointedly questioned the attorneys supporting the creation of St. Isidore, indicating that they view religious public schools in a far different light than government funding for private school vouchers or infrastructure projects.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the essence of the First Amendment's prohibition on government establishment of religion is 'we're not going to pay religious leaders to teach their religion.' St. Isidore's, she said, would use public money to pay Catholic leaders and Catholic teachers. 'You can only be a teacher in this school if you're willing to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church.'
Supporters say denying direct public funding to public charter schools amounts to anti-religious discrimination since states allow public money to flow to other types of charter schools. They also say the schools will give parents greater educational choices for their children.
But detractors say such schools would be a fundamental violation of the separation of church and state, could sap dollars from traditional public schools and could lead to discrimination against religious minorities, nonbelievers and LGBTQ+ students.
The Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa are seeking to establish St. Isidore's as an online-only school that would educate up to 500 students in grades K-12 in its first year. The school would serve students with special needs and those in rural Oklahoma who do not have access to brick-and mortar parochial schools. The idea grew out of pandemic experiments with online learning.
St. Isidore's would be open to students of all faiths and abide by state antidiscrimination rules, but school materials say 'admission assumes the student and family willingness to adhere with respect to the beliefs, expectations, policies, and procedures of the school.' Students are also required to attend Catholic Mass and 'support the [religious] mission of the School.'
Much of the argument Wednesday turned on the question of whether religious charter schools are public or private schools. The answer is significant because the government can require public schools to be non-sectarian, but it can't restrict private schools from teaching religion.
While school vouchers help pay for private religious schools in some states, charter schools have long been defined as public schools — even though they can be operated by private entities and have more independence than traditional public schools. All 47 states and the District of Columbia that allow charters require they be non-sectarian — but that would likely change if the Supreme Court approves St. Isidore's.
Some education experts say a ruling for the school could result in an explosion of new religious public charter schools, while supporters expect such a ruling to have more incremental effects. Some also predicted a decision for the school might push liberal states to pull back on charter school authorization programs since many would likely be uncomfortable with public money going to religious schools.
Proponents of St. Isidore's say the conservative majority on the Supreme Court opened the door to religious public charter schools in a series of rulings over the last decade that broke down the high church-state wall that existed in recent decades.
In 2017, the court found that Missouri could not exclude a religious preschool from a playground resurfacing program. In a 2020 Montana case, the court required states that aid private schools to include some faith-based ones in that funding. In 2022, the court required Maine to let parents use vouchers for religious schools. The same year, it let a high school football coach pray on a school field.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. concluded in the Montana case: 'A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.'
Justin Driver, a Yale law professor and an expert on education law, said the jurisprudence has recalibrated the Constitution's traditional balance between religion and secularism laid out in the First Amendment. The free exercise clause prohibits the government from interfering with the right of individuals to practice religion, while the establishment clause prevents the government from establishing an official religion or favoring faith over nonbelief.
'This Oklahoma case is the potential culmination of the Roberts court effort to cast the free exercise clause in the starring role in our Constitutional order,' Driver said. 'And offer the establishment clause only a cameo.'
The case arrived at the Supreme Court after a long — and sometimes bitter — fight that divided Republicans in Oklahoma, one of the nation's most conservative states. Catholic officials first floated the idea for the school in 2021, before it was narrowly approved by the state's virtual charter board in 2023 after significant debate and controversy.
The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and others then sued on behalf of a group of Oklahoma residents, asking for the approval to be overturned. They argued that their tax dollars should not go to a school that might discriminate against gay students and those of other faiths.
Oklahoma's Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, then filed his own suit against the virtual charter school board, arguing the contract it signed with St. Isidore violated the state's constitution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with Drummond last year, and the contract was rescinded. St. Isidore's backers then asked the Supreme Court to take up the case.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who is close friends with the Notre Dame University law professor who helped shepherd St. Isidore, recused herself from the case. That means only eight justices will vote on the legality of the school.
A 4-4 tie that would keep the state Supreme Court rejection of the school in place, but none of the five conservatives on the bench yesterday demonstrated clear support for the lower court rulings that barred St. Isidore's.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
Daniel Wu contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Stephen Miller Melts Down as Musk Exits With His Wife and an Attack on Trump
Stephen Miller Melts Down as Musk Exits With His Wife and an Attack on Trump

Yahoo

time14 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Stephen Miller Melts Down as Musk Exits With His Wife and an Attack on Trump

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller spammed social media Tuesday night in a raging display of his unwavering support for President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' as it faced increasing backlash from MAGA figures, including Elon Musk. The Trump loyalist went in hard to sell the 1,038-page document that passed the House by a single vote on May 22. Miller's comments came hours after former DOGE chief Musk attacked the mega-spending bill as the legislation moves to the Senate, labeling it a 'disgusting abomination.' The world's richest man also threatened to 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' at next year's midterm elections. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk wrote on X. Miller responded by calling Trump's bill 'the most essential piece of legislation... in generations' and 'the most MAGA bill ever passed by the House.' Miller pointedly described those on Trump's side of the argument as the president's 'closest allies.' It is unclear how much personal animus there is between Miller and Musk after the tech billionaire walked out on the administration, taking Miller's wife Katie with him. Katie Miller was hired by DOGE under the same 'special government employee' status as Musk, meaning that she was also time-limited to 130 days in office, but that has done little to quell unsubstantiated internet speculation about Musk and the Millers. She will now reportedly work for Musk full-time. Miller began his own barrage of posts on X, first by claiming Trump's bill would fund increased deportation. '[The bill] will increase by orders of magnitude the scope, scale, and speed of removing illegal and criminal aliens from the United States,' Miller wrote. 'For that reason alone, it's the most essential piece of legislation currently under consideration in the entire Western World, in generations.' 'Now or never,' the 39-year-old wrote in another post. Trump's bill is estimated to increase the budget deficit by approximately $600 billion in the next fiscal year. Miller tried to explain his take on the bill by breaking it down into three sections: 'The most significant border security and deportation effort' in history, a full 'extension and expansion' of Trump's tax cuts and finally cutting almost $2 trillion through 'the largest welcome reform in history.' 'Item 1 alone (border security + deportation),' Miller wrote, 'makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation.' Critics of Trump's bill fear it would lead to millions of Americans losing health coverage by slashing Medicaid and introducing budget cuts to food assistance programs, with spending on border security and military programs increased. Some Republicans have also expressed fears about the rising cost of the bill, despite a deadline of July 4 to get the measure passed and signed into law. Miller's flurry of posts included him bragging that the bill 'was designed by President Trump and his allies in Congress to deliver on his core campaign pledges to voters and that is exactly what it does. This is the most MAGA bill ever passed by the House, and it's not even close.' 'The bill was designed by President Trump, his loyal aides, and his closest allies in Congress to deliver fully and enthusiastically on the explicit promises he made the American People,' he wrote in another post. Miller also called out GOP Kentucky senator Rand Paul, who told Fox Business his biggest objection to Trump's bill was the addition of '$5 trillion to the debt ceiling' over the next decade. 'Why doesn't Rand ever fight this hard to deport illegals?' Miller asked in a post. Miller clarified Trump's bill would not fund the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or the Environmental Protection Agency. Experts have, however, warned the bill could ruin student loan borrowers and universities and will have an environmental impact through increased mining and logging of public lands to raise revenue. 'We could have never dreamed of a bill like this in 2017,' Miller posted on X. Miller's loyalty comes as other Republican senators have joined Musk in questioning the contents of Trump's bill. At least four are demanding changes, according to Reuters. They include Sen. Mike Lee and Sen. Ron Johnson. While Republicans have a 53-47 seat majority in the Senate, they cannot afford to lose support. Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene revealed she had not read a part of the bulky bill that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence systems for a decade. 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of (the bill) that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,' Greene posted on X. 'I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.' California Republican Jack Kimble was also critical of the bill on Tuesday. He posted on X: 'Full transparency, I did not know that the big beautiful bill was a real budget and would be used to determine spending levels. It seems to me that this is something that should have been made known to those in the House of Representative[s].' When a follower told him 'you're supposed to read the bills before you vote on them' Kimble replied 'Yeah, my bad.' Ron Johnson also agreed with Musk's 'disgusting abomination' comments on the bill. Speaking to NewsNation's The Hill on Tuesday, Johnson said, 'He's telling the truth... that's all I'm doing, too.' 'The trajectory of deficits is up, and no matter what the 'big, beautiful bill' does, it does not address that long-term prospect, it does not bend the deficit curve down. It supports it going up.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Trump was already aware of 'where Elon Musk stood on this bill' and that he would not be changing it. 'This is one, big, beautiful bill,' Leavitt said on Tuesday. 'And he's sticking to it.'

Stephen Miller Breaks Silence With ‘Pork' Prod at Elon Musk
Stephen Miller Breaks Silence With ‘Pork' Prod at Elon Musk

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Stephen Miller Breaks Silence With ‘Pork' Prod at Elon Musk

Stephen Miller has broken his silence after Elon Musk turned on his billionaire bestie, Donald Trump. The deputy chief of staff, usually a prolific social media poster, had been silent for hours online after the volcanic fall out between the two men, despite social media erupting with Musk's bombshell allegations including a claim that the president was named in the Jeffrey Epstein files. It comes as Miller's wife, Katie, followed Elon Musk out of the White House and DOGE duties last month, reportedly for a new job working with the tech billionaire. While Miller did not tag Musk or mention any of the billionaire's personal claims about Trump in a belated Thursday night post, he instead took a jab by referencing a comment made by the 53-year-old earlier this week. 'The only 'new' spending in the bill is to defend the homeland and deport the illegals—paid for by raising visa fees. All the other provisions? Massive spending cuts. There is no 'pork' in the bill. Just campaign promises," Miller wrote. Miller was quoting a pointed comment made by Musk which claimed Trump's bill is a 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill,' adding it 'is a disgusting abomination.' The Trump confidante followed the veiled comment with another late-night post that read, 'Still trying to figure out what the objection is to a bill that combines record tax cuts with record spending cuts with record deportations.' Miller's relative silence on the issue was in stark contract with his flurry of posts throughout the week as the Musk and Trump drama boiled over, and the Trump adviser went on a posting spree in an attempt to save the bill's reputation. Miller also pulled out on a scheduled appearance on Larry Kudlow's Fox News show on Thursday afternoon, with the host apologizing for him. 'We lost Mr Miller to a meeting in the Oval Office,' Kudlow said. 'Perfectly understandable, when I was in government it would happen all the time, you'd have to kill a TV show, you're at the president's beck and call.' Miller then appeared in a White House discussion alongside Senior White House officials Taylor Budowich, Russ Vought and James Braid discuss Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' The half-hour YouTube video was posted Thursday night, with Miller the first to speak. 'The most important thing in politics in American is honoring the promises you make to the American people, the sacred trust between the voter and the man they elect, in this case the president of the United States,' Miller said, noting the president made numerous promises on the campaign trail that 'are codified in this legislation.' Miller reposted numerous videos uploaded from the discussion to X by the White House's Rapid Response team. Musk earlier unfollowed Miller's account on X on Thursday, in an unfollowing spree that also included right-wing media personality Charlie Kirk. Appearing on Kirk's podcast on Thursday, Kirk said to Miller, 'I want you to say again that this would be one of the greatest legislative accomplishments in Republican party history.' Miller began the interview by telling Kirk, 'You've been such a critical element of the success of the MAGA movement. I hope your audience appreciates how much we appreciate you.' The interview descended into both men talking up the 'big beautiful bill.' 'If Ronald Reagan had just done no tax on tips, they'd still be giving speeches today about it at the Reagan Library,' Miller claimed. 'There'd be whole statues, there'd be museum displays, they'd have entire industries built off just telling the story of when Reagan did no tax on tips. Isn't that right Charlie?" The 30-minute discussion did not mention Elon Musk calling the bill a 'disgusting abomination' or his wife Katie's employment status. Miller did say he was 'optimistic' the bill would be passed 'because I have faith in the power of the Trump voter.'

Commentary: Committing to the Chicago Principles of free speech is the only way forward for higher education
Commentary: Committing to the Chicago Principles of free speech is the only way forward for higher education

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Commentary: Committing to the Chicago Principles of free speech is the only way forward for higher education

I've been a faculty member at the University of Chicago for 27 years; for 12 of them, I was married to the university's late president, Robert J. Zimmer. Bob was well known for his endorsement of the 'Chicago Principles' addressing academic free speech, which were formulated by a faculty committee he appointed in 2014. Now, in 2025, at a time when opposing ideological forces threaten to rip higher education apart altogether, it's clearer than ever we need to observe these principles if we are to maintain our universities as places for inquiry and learning rather than the nurturing of ideologies. First of all, let's be clear. Academic free speech and public free speech are not the same, and the Chicago Principles refer to the former, repeating a view of speech on campus with roots deep in the university's history. 'There is not an institution of learning in the country in which freedom of teaching is more absolutely untrammeled than in the University of Chicago,' remarked university President William Rainey Harper in 1902. Thirty years later, at a time of tension over a communist speaker on campus, President Robert M. Hutchins wrote that students 'should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.' Today, when being either for or against the position of our national government comes with undue risk and when free speech seems to many to be an insoluble problem, these principles — what they allow and what they do not — offer us simple guidelines as the American university faces two crises, both political in nature. The first crisis is one of free speech — and free thought — under attack. Faculty across the country face constraints on the ability to express a liberal opinion on any controversial matter, especially if related to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) or other 'woke' topics. One of my friends from another university worries that despite her U.S. passport (she's originally Japanese) the ICE men will kidnap her off the street because her work is in gender, disability and health. She doesn't expect her administration to step in if she's detained — too many college administrations are primarily worried about losing additional government funding. My friend is not being paranoid, and that's pretty terrifying in a country known for tolerance and freedom. Professors and students have been shut down or removed (or have fled the U.S.) for their views. Just think of Rümeysa Öztürk, whose great crime appears to have been co-authoring a pro-Palestinian op-ed for her school newspaper while on a valid F-1 visa. Never mind the Chicago Principles, ICE's overreach in her case violates the First Amendment: The government shall not interfere with freedom of expression. Öztürk was not disruptive or violent. She simply published a point of view. Are we willing to let go of this democratic cornerstone that enables public discourse and government accountability? Don't we want to push back even a little? The second crisis is arguably one of pushing free speech too far. Some students and faculty on campuses around the country seem to be confusing vandalism and disruption with the function of learning. Is using a bullhorn an example of academic free speech? If you thereby chill the main function of a university, offering an education, by disrupting classes and students, the Chicago Principles would say it's not. Nor is taking over a campus quad, vandalizing university property, throwing paint or harassing people you disagree with. Free speech on campus is enabled by certain limits of time, place and manner that keep it manageable for all. The university 'may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment … or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university.' Without such limits a university will have difficulty following its calling. If the future of the university itself is now at stake, as so many seem to agree, it would be a good time to reinstate our commitment to these principles. University presidents need not have to decide whether or not to call in the police if tent cities spring up on campus and administrative buildings are taken over. It should never get to that stage in the first place. ____ Shadi Bartsch is a professor in humanities at the University of Chicago and former director of the Institute on the Formation of Knowledge. _____

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store