logo
Why this Supreme Court case could dismantle the wall between church and state in US schools

Why this Supreme Court case could dismantle the wall between church and state in US schools

Time of India29-04-2025

Why the Supreme Court case could reshape church-state separation in US schools
The US Supreme Court is set to hear a pivotal case that could reshape the separation between church and state, a principle that has governed American public education for decades. On April 29, 2025, the Court will hear arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, a case that questions whether the state must fund a
Catholic charter school
, despite constitutional protections against public funds being used for religious purposes.
This case centers on St. Isidore's, a Catholic charter school in Oklahoma that has received approval to operate as a virtual institution. The school, rooted in Catholic doctrine, demands public funds to cover its operation costs, arguing that it is entitled to taxpayer support. The outcome of this case could set a dangerous precedent, allowing religious institutions to access public money for religious education, undermining the long-standing principle of
church-state separation
.
First Catholic charter school in the US
St. Isidore's is the first Catholic charter school ever approved in the United States. The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board narrowly green-lighted the school to operate as a virtual entity, offering a fully accredited curriculum with a Catholic foundation. Unlike other charter schools that comply with state educational standards, St. Isidore's insists on adhering to Catholic teachings and requires both students and teachers to follow Catholic doctrine. As reported by Slate, the school mandates that students attend mass and receive Catholic teachings, making it a religious institution, not just an academic one.
The school has now filed a claim for state funding, arguing that, under the US Constitution's
First Amendment
, it has the right to public money. The school's petition rests on the claim that the denial of funding violates its religious freedoms, as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause. This issue is compounded by the Oklahoma Constitution, which explicitly prohibits the use of public funds for religious institutions.
The case's broader impact on US public education
As the case moves to the US Supreme Court, the consequences for the broader
US education
system are profound. If the Court rules in favor of St. Isidore's, it would mark a major shift in the interpretation of the First Amendment and church-state relations in public education. Historically, the US has kept
public funding
separate from religious schools, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not used to promote religious instruction. However, recent rulings have eroded that separation.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment may require public funding for religious institutions, even when the Establishment Clause would typically prohibit it. This shift in interpretation has been a growing trend over the last eight years, with the Court increasingly favoring religious freedom over the separation of church and state.
As reported by Slate, conservative justices on the Court are expected to support St. Isidore's claim. 'I think it's pretty clear that at least four conservatives are ready to rule for the charter school,' said Slate's Mark Joseph Stern. The Court's decision in this case could fundamentally alter the relationship between religion and education in the US, opening the door for more religious schools to access public funds.
The fight over church-state separation
The case has sparked a broader debate about the role of religion in public education. Some critics argue that the US Constitution's Establishment Clause must be upheld to maintain a secular public education system, while others contend that the Free Exercise Clause grants religious institutions the right to receive state support.
In addition to its potential implications for religious schools, this case comes amid other ongoing battles over educational content in US schools. The controversy over LGBTQ+ inclusion in textbooks in Maryland, for example, reflects a growing trend of challenging the boundaries of what is considered appropriate education in the public sphere. As noted by Stern, 'It's impossible to square these things,' referring to the contrasting views on indoctrination in US schools.
With the Supreme Court poised to make a landmark decision, the future of public education—and the separation of church and state—hangs in the balance.
For real-time updates, follow our
AP SSC 10th Result 2025
Live Blog.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma

The Wire

time14 minutes ago

  • The Wire

Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma

Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia charged with illegally transporting migrants
Kilmar Abrego Garcia charged with illegally transporting migrants

Business Standard

time24 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

Kilmar Abrego Garcia charged with illegally transporting migrants

By Chris Strohm, Myles Miller and Bob Van Voris Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man mistakenly deported by the Trump administration to a prison in El Salvador, has been brought back to the US to face federal charges that he illegally transported undocumented immigrants within the country. Abrego Garcia was indicted by a grand jury in Tennessee in May, according to court filings. He appeared in a Tennessee courtroom Friday, hours after he was returned to the US, ABC reported. Attorney General Pam Bondi said an investigation determined that he was member of the criminal gang MS-13 and a 'danger to our community.' Abrego Garcia's case became a lightning rod over President Donald Trump's immigration policies, which have seen the administration move to ramp up deportations of undocumented migrants. The Supreme Court had told the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. 'Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant and they agreed to return him to our country,' Bondi said at a press conference in Washington. 'Upon completion of sentence we anticipate he will be returned to his home country of El Salvador.' The US is seeking to have Abrego Garcia detained as a flight risk and a danger. The charges could result in him spending the rest of his life behind bars, prosecutors said. 'Today's action proves what we've known all along — that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so,' Andrew Rossman, a lawyer for Abrego Garcia, said in an emailed statement. 'It's now up to our judicial system to see that Mr. Abrego Garcia receives the due process that the constitution guarantees to all persons.' According to court documents, Abrego Garcia's role, with other unidentified people, was to pick up migrants in the Houston area after they'd illegally crossed the border into Texas, then move them to other parts of the country. Abrego Garcia and other members of the group also allegedly transported guns and drugs illegally purchased in Texas into Maryland. Before he was removed from the country, an immigration judge had ruled that Abrego Garcia could not be sent to his home country of El Salvador, finding that he would be at risk of harm under the Convention Against Torture. The government later admitted he'd been deported to El Salvador in error. After he was removed from the country in March, his lawyers asked a federal court in Maryland to order his return to the US. Abrego Garica was initially kept in El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, but was later moved to another facility. On April 10, the US Supreme Court agreed with US District Judge Paula Xinis that Abrego Garcia shouldn't have been deported and ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' his release from Salvadoran custody. Trump and El Salvador President Nayib Bukele initially responded by claiming they had no power to return Abrego Garcia. Xinis then ordered the government to answer questions detailing its efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. A US appeals court upheld the order in a harshly critical opinion on April 17. 'Thanks to the bright light that has been shined on Abrego Garcia, this investigation continued,' Bondi said Friday. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democratic senator who visited Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, said that the administration will now 'have to make its case in the court of law.' 'For months the Trump administration flouted the Supreme Court and our Constitution,' Van Hollen said. 'Today, they appear to have finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States.'

'Combat terror, eliminate Jaish': Bilawal Bhutto delegation gets a reality check in US
'Combat terror, eliminate Jaish': Bilawal Bhutto delegation gets a reality check in US

First Post

time29 minutes ago

  • First Post

'Combat terror, eliminate Jaish': Bilawal Bhutto delegation gets a reality check in US

US Congressman Brad Sherman gave a reality check to the Pakistani delegation led by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, insisting that the country should 'do all it can' to eliminate terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammad from the region read more Pakistan's bid to spread its false propaganda in Washington failed horribly after a US lawmaker called out the country's support for a globally recognised terrorist organisation, Jaish-e-Mohammad. On Thursday, American Congressman Brad Sherman delivered stern advice to the Pakistani delegation led by former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari that the country should 'do all it can' to eliminate the terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammad. Sherman also told Bhutto's team that Pakistan should ensure the protection of religious minorities in the country. Interestingly, the remarks from the US lawmaker came months after Pakistan's Army Chief Asim Munir made provocative remarks, expressing his support for the so-called 'Two-Nation Theory,' days after which India witnessed the Pahalgam terror attack. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Sherman took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to reveal that he emphasised to the Pakistani delegation the importance of combating terrorism and, in particular, the group Jaish-e-Mohammed. The American lawmaker pointed out that it was the JeM that was behind the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002. For years, the people of #Sindh have faced political repression through enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. Since its founding in 2011, Pakistan's own Human Rights Commission has documented over 8,000 cases of enforced disappearances, many of which have never been… — Congressman Brad Sherman (@BradSherman) June 6, 2025 Sherman shares the plight of the Pearl family In his post, the US lawmaker noted that he told the Pakistani delegation that it is important to combat terror groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and shared the plight of the Pearl family. 'I emphasised to the Pakistani delegation the importance of combatting terrorism, and in particular, the group Jaish-e-Mohammed, who murdered my constituent Daniel Pearl in 2002,' the Congressman said. 'Pearl's family continues to live in my district, and Pakistan should do all it can to eliminate this vile group and combat terrorism in the region,' he added. Daniel was kidnapped by terrorists in Pakistan in January 2002, while he was on his way to what he had expected would be an interview with Pakistani religious cleric Mubarak Ali Gilani in Karachi. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Congressman from California also raised concerns about the lives of minorities in Pakistan. 'Christians, Hindus and Ahmadiyya Muslims living in Pakistan must be allowed to practice their faith and participate in the democratic system without fear of violence, persecution, discrimination, or an unequal justice system,' he said in the post. During the meeting, Sherman also called for the release of Dr Shakil Afridi, who continues to languish in prison for helping the United States kill Osama bin Laden . 'Freeing Dr Afridi represents an important step in bringing closure for victims of 9/11,' he said. Dr Afridi is a Pakistani physician who helped the CIA run a polio vaccination programme in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The campaign eventually helped in the collection of the DNA sample of the Bin Laden family. Afridi was eventually arrested by Pakistani authorities shortly after the American raid on Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad in May 2011. In 2012, a Pakistani court eventually sentenced him to 33 years in prison. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD

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