logo
Supreme Court sidesteps major ruling on religious public charter schools

Supreme Court sidesteps major ruling on religious public charter schools

NBC News22-05-2025
WASHINGTON — Oklahoma will not be able to launch the nation's first ever religious public charter school after the Supreme Court on Thursday deadlocked 4-4 in a major case on the separation of church and state.
The decision by the evenly divided court means that a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that said the proposal to launch St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School violates both the federal Constitution and state law remains in place.
As there was no majority, the court did not issue a written decision, and the case sets no nationwide precedent on the contentious legal question of whether religious schools must be able to participate in taxpayer-funded state charter school programs.
A key factor in the outcome was that conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who would have been the deciding vote, did not participate in the case. She did not explain why, but it is likely because of her ties with Notre Dame Law School. The law school's religious liberty clinic represents the charter school.
The court will likely be asked to weigh in on the issue in future cases.
St Isidore would have operated online statewide with a remit to promote the Catholic faith.
The case highlights tensions within the Constitution's First Amendment; one provision, the Establishment Clause, prohibits state endorsement of religion or preference for one religion over another, while another, the Free Exercise Clause, bars religious discrimination.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court had cited the state's interest in steering clear of Establishment Clause violations as a reason not to allow the proposal submitted by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to move forward.
A state board approved the proposal for St. Isidore in June 2023 despite concerns about its religious nature, prompting Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond to file suit.
The case saw Drummond on the opposite side to fellow Republicans in the state who backed the idea, but he prevailed at the Oklahoma Supreme Court the following year.
The Supreme Court, when Barrett is participating, has a 6-3 conservative majority that often backs religious rights. In recent years it has repeatedly strengthened the Free Exercise Clause in cases brought by conservative religious liberty activists, sometimes at the expense of the Establishment Clause. Some conservatives have long complained that the common understanding that the Establishment Clause requires strict separation of church and state is incorrect.
Lawyers representing the school and the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board sought to portray the dispute as similar to a series of recent rulings in which the court has said that under the Free Exercise Clause states cannot bar religious groups from government programs that are open to everyone else.
The push for religious public charter schools dovetails with the school choice movement, which supports parents using taxpayer funds to send their children to private school. Public school advocates see both efforts as broad assaults on traditional public schools.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Indian Super League in turmoil with domestic game on brink of collapse
Indian Super League in turmoil with domestic game on brink of collapse

The Guardian

time8 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Indian Super League in turmoil with domestic game on brink of collapse

Crystal Palace may be disappointed the court of arbitration for sport ruled against them on Monday but at least they now know their fate. Imagine if all Premier League clubs were waiting for a court decision that would, in effect, determine whether the season would go ahead at all. That is the situation the 14 Indian Super League (ISL) teams find themselves in. The whole of football there has been waiting for a ruling from the supreme court. It was expected in mid-July but has still not arrived. The season is due to start in September. Or at least, it was. The ISL, formed in 2013, has grown from eight teams to 14, becoming the top tier along the way. Football Sports Development Ltd (FSDL) runs the competition but put the 2025-26 season on hold on 11 July. At the time, despite the shock, most stakeholders felt it would go ahead but confidence, trust and bank balances have taken a turn for the worse. Sunil Chhetri, the biggest name in the Indian game and the third-highest active international men's goalscorer, summed it up. 'When my phone went off a few weeks ago informing us of a delay in pre-season by a fortnight, I must admit it made me smile,' the 41-year-old wrote on social media. 'And that's because I was on vacation … I had more time than I had bargained to get in shape. 'That 'fortnight' has now changed to 'indefinitely' and that smile's been wiped out … Everybody in the Indian football ecosystem is worried, hurt, scared about the uncertainty we are faced with.' On Monday, the president of the All India Football Federation (AIFF), Kalyan Chaubey, used the c-word. 'It is true that we are going through crisis for which we are not responsible,' he told the Press Trust of India. 'Some self-claimed reformers with vested interests have created this situation. I believe, by the grace of God, we will collectively be able to tide over this crisis.' It all stems from the fact that the 15-year Master Rights Agreement (MRA) between FSDL and the AIFF, which received more than £4m annually from its commercial partner, is due to end in December, before the season's halfway point. There were discussions earlier this year and new proposals from FSDL but no deal was reached. Then the supreme court told the federation not to negotiate until it rules on the AIFF's constitution. So nothing is happening. The AIFF did not comment when contacted by the Guardian. A source close to FSDL said its hands were tied by the court. 'FSDL made a leap of faith in Indian football 15 years ago,' the source said. 'The current structure is atypical in football. Moving forward, there is a requirement to move to a structure in line with global best practices such as the Premier League, where the clubs are full or majority owners of the league themselves. The proposal was that clubs become majority owners of the league, with FSDL and the AIFF still involved as equity holders, so everyone has skin in the game and aligned incentives. AIFF prefers to continue with the fixed fee every year and that was the situation in April when the supreme court said that the AIFF needs to pause.' Limbo, however, can be costly, as people still need to be paid. Even when there is football, most ISL clubs lose money. Revenue from a central broadcasting and sponsorship pool is pretty much cancelled out by the franchise fee that the owners – who range from the City Football Group to cricket stars such as Virat Kohli and Bollywood's John Abraham – have to pay. Discussions on how the league is organised are welcome and necessary but are on the back burner for now. There are more pressing issues. Three clubs have suspended salaries, football operations or both: Bengaluru, Chennaiyin and Odisha. The owner of Odisha, Rohan Sharma, gave his reasons. 'It becomes harder to justify to my stakeholders to sink Crs upon Crs [tens of millions of rupees] with nothing to show for it, and no end in sight,' he wrote on social media. 'We have: no clarity when the League will Start, nowhere to practise/play/work in Odisha, no way to get sponsorship since there's no season, no way to engage investors with an expiring participation agreement. We hoped something would give, but sadly it hasn't.' Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion That applies not only to those who work for the clubs. The Times of India reported that nine concerned match officials had written to the AIFF. 'The lack of certainty regarding continuation of ISL has created uncertainty around our future and could compel us to seek alternative employment,' the referees said. '[This] would not only impact our livelihoods but also affect the continuity and development of professional refereeing in India.' On Friday, 11 ISL clubs wrote to the governing body in New Delhi to urge it to bring the seriousness of the situation to the attention of the supreme court, threatening legal action if this does not happen. It has become a big mess. Ideally, the court rules sooner rather than later and then everything can fall into place. Sources say about six months are needed to play the league, which must finish by the last day of May, so there is some leeway. But with extra time needed for negotiations between the AIFF and FSDL, and then with broadcasters, sponsors, clubs and players, plus international windows, there is not much.

Why Trump could take over DC police and deploy National Guard
Why Trump could take over DC police and deploy National Guard

The Herald Scotland

time8 hours ago

  • The Herald Scotland

Why Trump could take over DC police and deploy National Guard

Trump also has special authority to deploy the National Guard in DC, in contrast to governors traditionally overseeing mobilizations in their states. But the military is typically blocked from participating directly in law enforcement, which is why California filed a federal lawsuit against Trump's recent deployment of thousands of troops in Los Angeles. "DC as a federal enclave is fundamentally different than a state or a local government," Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University, told USA TODAY. Here's what to know about Trump's authority to bolster law enforcement in states and cities - and the limitations on that power: Trump becomes first to take over DC police under 1973 Home Rule Act The Constitution ratified in 1787 provided for a federal capital district to serve as the seat of government controlled by Congress, and DC was founded a few years later. In 1973, Congress approved the Home Rule Act that gave the city a mayor and city council. But Congress kept control over the city's spending and the ability to overturn DC laws, as happened in 2023 when the council tried to reduce penalties for some crimes. A provision in DC law allows the president to take control of the Metropolitan Police Force temporarily during an emergency. "I think Washington DC is the only city where the president can do that," Tom Manger, the former chief of Capitol police and departments in the DC suburbs of Montgomery County in Maryland and Fairfax County in Virginia, told USA TODAY. Trump invoked the provision for the first time Aug. 11 aiming to rid the city of what he called "crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse." He said the city was overrun with "violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals," despite a declining crime rate. Trump had to notify the leaders of congressional committees overseeing DC in order for him to keep control of the police for 30 days. A longer extension would require authorization by lawmakers. Trump told reporters Aug. 13 that he would ask Congress to "long-term extensions" for him to remain control of the DC police, which he expected to be approved "pretty much unanimously." But he said he could call a national emergency if needed. "We're going to be essentially crime free," Trump said. "This is going to be a beacon." Trump declared the initial emergency despite DC reporting a 35% drop in violent crime from 2023 to 2024, and a 26% drop in crime so far in 2025. Kreis said "a lot of people would contest" the declaration of an emergency, but the challenge would be difficult to litigate. "You almost by default have to defer to the president's judgment on this, no matter who the president is," Kreis said. Taking away DC home rule would require change in federal law Trump is unlikely to be able to take control of the entire DC government because that would require a change in federal law. The legislation could be blocked by filibuster in the Senate, which requires 60 votes to overcome in a chamber with 53 of Trump's fellow Republicans and 47 members of the Democratic caucus. Trump threatened to expand the deployment of the National Guard to help fight crime in other states and cities. He specifically cited New York, Chicago and other cities as targets for more troops. "We're not going to lose our cities over this. This will go further. We're starting very strongly with DC," Trump said. "We're going to take back our capital," Trump added. "And then we'll look at other cities also. But other cities and states aren't part of the federal government, so experts say he could not directly take over their police or local governments."The federal government does not have the authority to commandeer state and local officials against their will to do (its) bidding," Kreis said. "He just fundamentally cannot do that as a federalism matter." DC Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump's takeover of the police force "unsettling and unprecedented" but didn't challenge it in court. "It's times like these when America needs to know that DC should be the 51st state," Bowser said in a social media post Aug. 12. Trump leads DC National Guard as commander in chief Trump didn't need any additional authority Aug. 11 to assign 800 National Guard troops to bolster crime fighting in DC because as commander in chief he oversees the Guard in the federal city. Joseph Nunn, national security counsel at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, said presidents can deploy the National Guard where they want, but the troops are prevented from directly participating in law enforcement such as making arrests under a law called the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. This is why California National Guard troops in Los Angeles were described as protecting federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and buildings rather than helping arrest undocumented immigrants. "He can put those troops wherever he wants to put them, but they will be constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act," Nunn told USA TODAY. National Guard deployments have been routine Before Trump's latest directives, National Guard deployments were routine in DC and elsewhere for purposes other than law enforcement. For example, after the Capitol attack Jan. 6, 2021, Congress gave Manger the authority to request reinforcements from the National Guard on his own as chief of Capitol police, as opposed to having requests come from a three-member board. Manger said he appreciated the extra staffing to protect the Capitol or help with traffic during protests, such as when he set up dozens of traffic posts to keep vehicles moving during a protest by truckers against COVID-19 mandates. "The National Guard is terrific," Manger said. Local authorities also often coordinate with federal law enforcement such as the FBI to fight organized crime or the Drug Enforcement Administration to combat drug trafficking. "There's a symbiotic relationship between federal and local police across the country," Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum think tank, told USA TODAY. "What happened in Washington is distinctly different from what happens in pretty much any city in the country." Wexler added that the National Guard has a role to play, but troops are traditionally use "sparingly." The military "will never be a replacement for local police," Wexler said. "No police chief I know would ever put the National Guard in a position where they're making an arrest or their dealing directly with a volatile crowd. They have to be used strategically." But Manger was uncertain how Trump would move homeless people out of the capital. "I'm not aware of any other cities or towns around the country that are clamoring for homeless," Manger said. "Where is he going to put them?" Richard Stengel, a former undersecretary of state during the Obama administration, warned against the use of military to bolster law enforcement at a time when violent crime in DC is at a 30-year low. "Throughout history, autocrats use a false pretext to impose government control over local law enforcement as a prelude to a more national takeover," Stengel said in a social media post Aug. 11. "That's far more dangerous than the situation he says he is fixing." Trump bolsters immigration enforcement with National Guard The Pentagon announced on July 25 that 1,700 National Guard personnel - 1,200 already deployed plus 500 additional troops - will work on "case management, transportation and logistical support, and clerical support for the in- and out-processing" of ICE arrests. The troops were sent to more than a dozen cities. The duties of some will also include taking DNA swabs, photographs and fingerprints of people held at ICE facilities, according to a defense official speaking on condition of anonymity. California fights Trump's use of National Guard for law enforcement A landmark federal trial began Aug. 11 in San Francisco challenging Trump's deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to support deportations and quell immigration protests in Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco will determine if the government violated the Posse Comitatus Act. California sued the Trump administration by arguing the deployment violated federal law and state sovereignty. But a federal appeals court allowed Trump to retain control of California's National Guard during the legal fight. California Gov. Gavin Newsom seeks a ruling that would return its National Guard troops to state control and a declaration that Trump's action was illegal. What is the Insurrection Act? One option for Trump to get around the prohibition on troops conducting law enforcement would be to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which aimed to suppress armed rebellion or insurrection. Despite the harsh terms, president have invoked the law throughout the country's history. Former President George H.W. Bush was the last to invoke the law in 1992, when he deployed the National Guard in Los Angeles in response to rioting after the acquittal of four white police officers charged with beating a Black motorist, Rodney King. Trump threatened repeatedly after Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 to invoke the Insurrection Act but hasn't done so recently. Legal experts said any challenge to Trump invoking that law would turn on similar semantics defining whether the emergency or rebellion justified taking over the DC police or deploying National Guard troops in other cities. "I think it would be naive to suggest that the president would not try or could not try to stretch the definitions of insurrection or rebellion beyond their common political usage to suit his political needs," Kreis said. "The law might say one thing but its ability to be stretched and molded into a political weapon for the president's benefit is not really purely speculative." Contributing: Cybele Mayes-Osterman and Reuters

Alaska summit will reveal extent Trump borrows from Putin playbook
Alaska summit will reveal extent Trump borrows from Putin playbook

The National

time11 hours ago

  • The National

Alaska summit will reveal extent Trump borrows from Putin playbook

Trump's military takeover of the nation's capital, sending National Guard troops to Washington's streets and seizing control of the DC municipal police department, could have come straight from the Putin playbook. It matters little that there is no crime wave 'emergency' as Trump says. In fact, Washington's crime rate has fallen in recent years with violent crime overall down 26% compared with this time a year ago. It matters even less that in order to deploy the National Guard, Trump has invoked an obscure section of the 1973 DC Home Rule Act, which allows the president to take control of local law enforcement in the district for a period of one month. READ MORE: Healthcare in Gaza facing 'catastrophe' amid food shortages, doctor warns Back on January 6, 2021, Trump might have been relying on an incited mob of supporters to seize the Capitol building, but today, in an open show of power in his second term, he can use his presidential powers at will, it seems, to send out an unmistakeable message of his administration's willingness and capacity to wield power. At every turn, Trump is expanding his control in a way that poses a real threat to America's democracy. Just take the press as an example. As a report by the media watchdog the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) recently identified, there are three ways in which the Trump administration is chipping away at US press freedom: by limiting access to information, instituting new regulations and targeting journalists and newsrooms with lawsuits and investigations. Or to put this another way, you are rewarded for the 'right' coverage and vilified if it doesn't fit with Trump's thinking. As the CPJ also rightly points out, the fate of American democracy and journalists' ability to work without fear are intertwined. This threat to press freedom must then be seen as occurring in a larger context in which First Amendment rights more broadly are being eroded. Which takes me back to the meeting between Trump and Putin tomorrow. For while America admittedly might still be a long way off being the equivalent of Putin's authoritarian Russia, Trump so far is making a good go at showing he is working off the same political page as his Kremlin pal. What both leaders do domestically in political terms, of course, is one thing, but when it comes to imposing their will on another independent sovereign nation, that is something else again. The news that this will be a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska and that neither of the two leaders will be flanked by their advisers has only added to the disquiet that between them they will come to a tawdry deal that will then effectively be imposed on Ukraine. Trump as we know has form when it comes to striking ill-considered agreements with whoever gets into a room with him. It's also a reminder of how autocrats often work, for when the tanks, troops or mobs can't get them what they covet in the first instance, too often shady deals with each other become an alternative. READ MORE: Acclaimed Scottish screenwriter wears 'Palestine Action' T-shirt at Fringe As Edward Luce, US national editor of the Financial Times, wryly put it a few days ago: 'The ghosts of Munich, Yalta and other sordid bargains ought to be stalking Alaska.' For make no mistake, what happens in that room at the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson military facility in Anchorage tomorrow is a profoundly crucial moment not just for Ukraine, but for Europe and its future relations with the Trump administration and the US generally. If the intense diplomacy and virtual meetings between European leaders, Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Trump are anything to go by, then it's evident that every party realises that what comes out of tomorrow's meeting could be a gamechanger with profound geopolitical consequences. It's no coincidence too that the meeting comes at precisely the moment when Moscow has upped the ante on eastern Ukraine's battlefields. There in the Donbas these past days, Russian forces have breached the frontline along a narrow corridor parallel to Dobropillia, a coal-mining town turned key logistical hub north of the stronghold of Pokrovsk that Moscow's troops have almost encircled. In short, grab as much territory as possible before any 'swapping of land', as Trump puts it, becomes part of the deal between him and Putin. That European countries are outraged that Zelenskyy will not be present in Alaska as any deal is cut is justified. In a worst possible scenario, Ukraine and its European allies could be left with a very stark choice. Either sign up to the deal and accept a rewriting of European security over their heads or reject it and risk Trump walking away from US military support for Ukraine. Speaking to the US-based Foreign Policy magazine, John Foreman, a former UK defence attache to Moscow and Kyiv, summed up the worst fears of many about the outcome. 'I worry that his (Trump's) shared authoritarian instincts with Putin, lack of clarity in his mind about his own position and wish to be seen as a big man deciding the fate of nations at the stroke of a Sharpie will lead to him agreeing to terms which are wholly unacceptable,' Foreman warned. For Putin, meanwhile, tomorrow's summit will mark his first visit to the US since 2015 and his first visit to the country since 2007 that has come outside of the context of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Should things go the way of the Russian leader, Trump would be giving away Ukrainian land that Putin could not win by force of arms. Few doubt that the Kremlin's man would relish the humiliation of European leaders who have insisted that nothing about Ukraine should be decided without Ukraine. Speaking earlier this week about the summit, Trump said it would be 'a feel-out meeting a little bit', adding that he would know within two minutes whether progress is possible. 'I may say 'lots of luck, keep fighting', or I may say 'we can make a deal',' Trump added. Only tomorrow will tell which of those outcomes win the day. To say that nerves will remain frayed until then would be an understatement. In fact, they could well be in tatters in its aftermath.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store