'Bad for parents': School choice supporters protest exclusion of religious charter in Supreme Court case
Dozens of school choice advocates gathered outside the Supreme Court Wednesday as justices weighed whether public funds could go directly to religious charter schools.
The protesters rallied and held signs that said "all students, all options, all dollars" and "free to learn," as they advocated for expanded access to alternatives to traditional public schools, especially for students who struggle in those settings.
The case, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond, challenges a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that struck down a contract establishing St. Isidore – a publicly funded, Catholic online school – as a violation of state and federal law. Now before the U.S. Supreme Court, advocates argue that excluding religious schools from state-run charter programs amounts to unconstitutional discrimination.
"The court has time and time again said that the Free Exercise Clause demands that the government treat religious and secular organizations the same, and that's not what happened here. The state excluded St. Isidore simply because of its religious character, that's wrong and bad for parents," said Kate Anderson, an attorney at ADF working on the case.
Liberal Supreme Court Justices Grill Religious Institution In Landmark School Choice Case
For students like Contina Jones' son, public schools are not always a good fit. "He was very sad, very emotional every day, he was overstimulated, teachers were in and out, and I needed something that was able to cater to how my son learns," said Jones, a Mississippi resident who joined the crowd outside the court. "Every child, regardless of zip code, should be able to go to a school that is for them for their families."
Read On The Fox News App
The justices are being asked to weigh whether a religious charter school is entitled to the same treatment and funding as a secular one – a question that could redefine how states draw the line between church and state in public education.
"Charter schools are not public schools in the same way as traditional ones," said Thomas Fisher, executive vice president of EdChoice. "They're designed to have curricula other than what public schools provide. The First Amendment protects their free exercise and doesn't prohibit them from exercising their religion."
At issue is whether the school should be considered a public school – which have largely been considered as extensions of the state government, and required to be nonreligious under the Establishment Clause – or whether it should be considered private entities or contractors.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican who is running for governor, filed the lawsuit against the school, stating that the establishment of St. Isidore would violate both the Oklahoma Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Public funds should not be used to support religious institutions, he emphasized, asserting that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for government endorsement of religion.
Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On School Choice Case Involving Catholic Charter School
The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with Drummond's assessment, ruling that charter schools are public entities and must remain nonsectarian. The court's decision highlighted concerns that approving St. Isidore as a religious charter school could lead to state-sponsored religious indoctrination, undermining the neutrality of public education.
"The key here is that this school is its own school. This school is not a state school – it's a charter school. It has the ability to set its own curriculum," added John Tidwell, Oklahoma state director of Americans for Prosperity.
He called the case a "great test to see what the opportunity is for similar schools all across the country."
"We're really excited by this opportunity."
Erika Donalds, chair of America First Policy Institute's Center for Education Opportunity, echoed the sentiment, framing the case as a potential expansion of "the free market of education."
"St. Isidore is just one example of many high-quality options that are out there that could be chartered for families," Donalds said. "The Supreme Court has struck down discrimination against religious institutions in other contexts. If they can offer high-quality education, families should be able to access those options with public funds."
Donalds emphasized that the choice remains with families. "Parents are not required to choose a religiously affiliated charter school, but they should have the option to do so — so long as financial and academic accountability measures are met."
She also pointed to bipartisan support for school choice nationwide.
"We've seen polling that shows 70% of Republicans, nearly 70% of Democrats, and Independents all support school choice. This movement has momentum, and it's not going to stop."
The court's ruling, expected by the end of June, could have sweeping implications for charter school policy and religious liberty jurisprudence across the country, and comes at a time when 45 U.S. states currently authorize charter schools.
Fox News' Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report. Original article source: 'Bad for parents': School choice supporters protest exclusion of religious charter in Supreme Court case
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dozens Of Journalists Targeted, Shot, Detained While Covering LA Protests, Press Org Says
Shocking video and photos taken amid the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles show journalists and news crews being shot, detained and forced off public property by law enforcement, raising concerns of excessive force and First Amendment rights violations. There have been more than 30 incidents of police violence against journalists as of Tuesday, including 20 injuries, at least five of which required emergency room or urgent care visits, said Adam Rose, the press rights chair with the Los Angeles Press Club, which released a statement Monday urging an end to the targeting of journalists whose work is constitutionally protected. The list of injuries includes a freelance photojournalist requiring emergency surgery Sunday night after being shot in the leg with a three-inch piece of plastic that he believes was designed to be shot and explode above a crowd. Graphic photos shared with HuffPost show a gaping wound in Nick Stern's right thigh that he said has left him unable to walk or move without assistance. 'Why this device was shot at human, kind of, waist high level, I do not know. The people around me at that time was doing nothing more than waving Mexican flags,' he told HuffPost. Stern, who said he has three decades of experience photographing public protests, including in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the George Floyd protests in 2020, expressed concern that people may die from the excessive use of force that he witnessed and experienced firsthand. 'I never thought for one moment that I'd actually have to be fearful of law enforcement during a public protest but that seems to be where the danger to journalists comes from,' he said. Also Sunday, photographer Toby Canham said he was shot in the forehead with a rubber bullet while snapping pictures of law enforcement gathered along a highway. The British Army veteran, who was on assignment for the New York Post, photographed the projectile flying at him split seconds before it hit him in the head. He was treated for whiplash and neck pain at a local hospital Monday, the Post reported. 'It's a real shame. I completely understand being in the position where you could get injured, but at the same time, there was no justification for even aiming the rifle at me and pulling the trigger, so I'm a bit pissed off about that, to be honest,' he told the paper, while sharing photos of his bloodied head. Australian broadcast journalist Lauren Tomasi had just finished reporting live from Los Angeles' downtown area on Sunday when her news outlet, 9 News, reported that an officer turned his gun toward her and fired a rubber bullet from close range. Video shows Tomasi jumping and yelling in pain. U.S. Correspondent Lauren Tomasi has been caught in the crossfire as the LAPD fired rubber bullets at protesters in the heart of Los Angeles. #9NewsLATEST: — 9News Australia (@9NewsAUS) June 9, 2025 Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs immediately joined in on condemning the shooting, stating 'that all journalists should be able to do their work safely.' CNN's Jason Carroll was also reporting live from the scene on Monday when cameras captured him being detained by officers with his hands bound behind his back. Another video posted by reporter Sergio Olmos shows Carroll and a videographer being violently shoved by police while they're standing along a sidewalk. Similar videos posted on social media show journalists being shoved, shot and pushed out of public areas despite audibly identifying themselves as members of the press. View this post on Instagram A post shared by NBCLA (@nbcla) Homeland Security agents shot me and other journalists with pepper ball bullets yesterday in Los Angeles — @ (@ryannemena) June 7, 2025 The LA Press Club joined several press freedom organizations Monday expressing concern to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that federal officers are violating journalists' First Amendment rights while they cover the protests. 'In some cases, federal officers appear to have deliberately targeted journalists who were doing nothing more than their job covering the news,' a letter addressed to Noem by the organizations states. 'Under the First Amendment, journalists who are merely reporting on events and not interfering with federal operations cannot be subject to general dispersal orders and 'cannot be punished for the violent acts of others,' and the 'proper response' to any unlawful conduct is 'to arrest those who actually engage in such conduct, rather than to suppress legitimate First Amendment conduct as a prophylactic measure,'' the letter continues. Rose told HuffPost they have not received a response from DOH as of Tuesday. Noem's office also did not immediately respond to HuffPost's request for comment. Trump Sets National Guard On Los Angeles As Protesters Counter Immigration Raids: Live Updates CNN Journalist Reports On Being 'Detained' By Police As It Happens Reporter Gets Hit By Rubber Bullet At LA Protest, Sparking Shock Allegation FBI Puts LA Protester On 'Most Wanted' List As Government Threatens Crackdown


UPI
28 minutes ago
- UPI
Argentina's high court upholds former President Kirchner's conviction
Argentina's Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (pictured in 2013) must serve her six-year prison sentence for a corruption conviction. File Photo by Stefano Spaziani/UPI | License Photo June 10 (UPI) -- Former Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner must serve her six-year prison sentence for a corruption conviction, the nation's Supreme Court of Justice ruled on Tuesday. The three-judge court unanimously upheld Kirchner's 2022 corruption conviction and ruled she is banned from holding public office. The conviction arises from how awards for 51 public works projects were issued in what became the "Vialidad" trial. Kirchner, 72, received due process, and the "rulings issued by the lower courts were based on extensive evidence assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judgment and the penal code enacted by Congress," the judges wrote in Tuesday's verdict. She had argued that the trial arose from political persecution because she is an influential leader of the opposition to current Argentine President Javier Milei and his government. Kirchner was Argentina's president from 2007 to 2015. She also was Argentina's vice president from 2019 to 2023. She is a popular leftist politician and recently announced she intended to run for a seat during the Sept. 7 Buenos Aires Province legislative elections. If she were to run and win, the victory would have given Kirchner immunity against imprisonment over the four-year term as a provincial lawmaker. The Supreme Court's decision against her makes it impossible for Kirchner to seek any public office. "The republic works," Milei said in a translated statement made during his visit to Israel. "All the corrupt journalists, accomplices of politicians, have been exposed in their operetta about the alleged pact of impunity," Milei said. The Federal Oral Court 2 in December 2022 found Kirchner guilty of corruption, sentenced her to prison and imposed a lifetime disqualification from holding public office due to "fraudulent administration to the detriment of the state." She was allowed to stay out of prison while the Supreme Court deliberated the case. Kirchner similarly was charged with fraud in 2016 and was convicted in February 2021, which made her Argentina's first vice president to be convicted of a crime while still in office. She was accused of and convicted of directing 51 public works contracts to a company owned by Kirchner's friend and business associate, Lazaro Baez. The scheme also directed $1 billion to Baez, who is serving a 12-year sentence for a money-laundering conviction in 2021 and was sentenced to another six years in prison for charges arising from the case that resulted inKirchner's conviction.


San Francisco Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Associated Press seeks full appeals court hearing on access to Trump administration events
The Associated Press on Tuesday asked for a hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, seeking to overturn a three-judge panel's ruling that allowed the Trump administration to continue blocking AP access to some presidential events — a four-month case that has raised questions about what level of journalistic access to the presidency the First Amendment permits. Three judges of that court on Friday, in a 2-1 decision, said it was OK for Trump to continue keeping AP journalists out of Oval Office or other small events out in retaliation over the news outlet's decision not to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico's name. He had sought a pause of a lower court's ruling in AP's favor in April that the administration was improperly punishing the news organization for the content of its speech. 'The decision of the appellate panel to pause the district court's order allows the White House to discriminate and retaliate over words it does not like, a violation of the First Amendment,' AP spokesman Patrick Maks said. 'We are seeking a rehearing of this decision by the full appellate court because an essential American principle is at stake.' A hearing before the full court would change the landscape — and possibly the outcome as well. The two judges who ruled in Trump's favor on Friday had been appointed to the bench by him. The full court consists of nine members appointed by Democratic presidents, and six by Republicans. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a small-group 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. ___ David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and