logo
Supreme Court may allow church-run, publicly funded charter schools across the nation

Supreme Court may allow church-run, publicly funded charter schools across the nation

Yahoo30-04-2025

The Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared poised Wednesday to rule that church-run schools have a right to operate as public-funded charters.
If so, the decision could transform K-12 education and public schooling nationwide.
Since the early 1990s, charter schools have taken hold in 47 states as a popular public-funded option for parents and their children. They enroll 3.5 million children nationwide.
When establishing these new schools, lawmakers and education officials agreed they would be both public and "nonsectarian," or not religious. They did so believing the Constitution's ban on an "establishment of religion" and the principle of church-state separation prohibited using tax money to fund churches or teach religion.
But the court's conservatives said Wednesday they believe it is unfair and unconstitutional to turn down church-run schools as tax-funded charters.
"They are saying don't exclude us because of our religion," said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Read more: Contributor: Tax dollars for religious schools? Conservative justices could be the roadblock
Washington attorney Greg Garre said it would be "remarkable" and "astounding" for the court to overrule Congress and the laws of 47 states and to rule they must fund church-sponsored schools.
But that argument did not appear to sway the court's conservative majority.
The charter schools case heard Wednesday highlighted the stark shift in religion law that has been engineered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. over the last decade.
In a series of opinions, he has staked out the view that denying public funding to religious groups violates the 1st Amendment and its protection for the "free exercise" of religion. His opinions said it is discriminatory and wrong to deny funding to churches or religious groups if others can obtain the same public benefits.
The court's conservatives, all of whom were raised as Catholics, trace the history of opposition to "sectarian" schools to 19th century anti-Catholic "bigotry."
Denying public funding based on religion "is odious to our Constitution and cannot stand," Roberts wrote in 2017. Such discrimination violates the 1st Amendment's protection for the "free exercise" of religion, he said.
That case involved a Lutheran church in Missouri that sought a state grant to improve the playground for its day care center. In later decisions, the court applied this principle to give parents a right to obtain state grants or vouchers to send their children to religious schools.
Now the court sounded ready to apply that principle nationwide, opening the door for churches to sponsor state-funded charter schools that could teach religion.
On Wednesday, the court confronted the high-stakes clash over the religious schools in a case from Oklahoma. It will determine not just whether states may permit church-run charter schools using public funds, but whether they must authorize them.
The court's three liberals were skeptical of converting public charter schools into a program that includes privately run religious schools.
"The hallmark of public education is that taxpayers are paying for it," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. And the court's precedents say that tax money should not be used to teach religion, she said.
But none of the conservative justices agreed.
Two years ago, the Catholic bishops of Tulsa and Oklahoma City formed a private, nonprofit corporation to establish the nation's first religious charter school. They said St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School would operate "as a Catholic school" but would be open to all.
But Oklahoma Atty. Gen. Gentner Drummond said that public funding for the Catholic school would violate state and federal laws on charter schools as well as the state's Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed last year and blocked the authorization of the new charter school. "Oklahoma Constitution prohibits the state from using public money for the benefit or support of any religious institution," the state justices said in a 6-2 decision.
Read more: Supreme Court will decide if religious schools may be funded as public charters
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group, appealed to the Supreme Court, quoting the court's opinions written by the chief justice.
They said the state court's ruling against the new Catholic-run charter school "poses a grave threat to fundamental freedoms." It "harms religious schools and religious parents who wish to send their children to schools that align with their values," they wrote. "The Free Exercise clause firmly rebukes such anti-religious discrimination."
Only eight justices will decide the case of Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board vs. Drummond.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett is a longtime friend of Notre Dame law professor Nicole Garnett, who has been a leading advocate for religious charter schools. The two met when they were law clerks at the Supreme Court in 1998. Barrett was a clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia while Garnett worked for Justice Clarence Thomas. Afterward, they taught for decades at the Notre Dame law school.
In January, when the court said it would hear the charter school case from Oklahoma, the order also said Barrett "took no part" in the decision.
But the court's five other conservative justices heard Wednesday's argument. In addition to Roberts, they include Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. In their questions, all five sounded as though they would rule in favor of the Catholic charter school.
The court will hand down a decision by late June.
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court Grants Musk-Less DOGE Access to Social Security Data
Supreme Court Grants Musk-Less DOGE Access to Social Security Data

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Supreme Court Grants Musk-Less DOGE Access to Social Security Data

Elon Musk may be persona non grata at the White House, but DOGE lives on. The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency should be allowed access to Social Security Administration data, lifting a previously issued injunction that blocked the department from doing so. While the court's majority did not provide a detailed explanation of their ruling, they did write, 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.' The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning the urgency of the application and expressing concerns about the potential privacy risks that would result from the ruling. She wrote, 'In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The Trump administration had previously argued that DOGE employees needed access to SSA data in order to halt fraudulent payments, but a federal judge in Maryland ruled that DOGE being granted such access violated federal law and put millions of people's data at risk. Two unions—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers—brought the lawsuit alongside the Alliance for Retired Americans. The groups argued that allowing DOGE broader access to individuals' personal data would violate the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 'The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure—and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," their lawyers wrote. The data DOGE employees now have access to includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information. In her dissent, Jackson argued that the Supreme Court had 'truly lost its moorings,' by allowing the move and bending its usual standards to accommodate the Trump administration, adding, 'The Court is… unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration.'

Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel

CBS News

time37 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel

Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"

Proud Boys Sue DOJ For $100 Million Over Jan. 6 Arrests
Proud Boys Sue DOJ For $100 Million Over Jan. 6 Arrests

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Proud Boys Sue DOJ For $100 Million Over Jan. 6 Arrests

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump issued a blanket pardon to more than 1,500 people charged in the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection. But it still wasn't enough. Now, five Proud Boys leaders are suing the Department of Justice (DOJ) over their prosecutions and asking the government to surrender millions. The lawsuit, filed by Dominic Pezzola, Henry 'Enrique' Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joe Biggs, and Zachary Rehl, asks the government to pay them $100 million in restitution, despite the fact that the latter four were found guilty of engaging in a seditious 2021 conspiracy to keep Trump in power. Two years after the riot, Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs and Rehl were found guilty of plotting to oppose Congress' election certification by force. Pezzola was the only one who was acquitted of seditious conspiracy but was still found guilty of assaulting police, stealing a riot shield, smashing a window breached by rioters, conspiring to impede lawmakers and police, and more. The five men filed the lawsuit Friday in Florida, putting the ball in Trump's court to either defend the prosecutions or pay an exorbitant sum at taxpayers' expense. The Proud Boys is a far-right militant organization that promotes political violence and embraces misogynistic, xenophobic, and anti-LGBTQ+ ideologies. If the DOJ decides to pay the Proud Boys members, many Democrats worry that it could symbolize the president's willingness to outwardly sanction political violence and empower extremists. In the pardon proclamation announced on Jan. 20, Trump noted that the controversial mercy 'ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation.' Prior to the pardons, Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs, Rehl, and Pezzola were each sentenced to 22, 18, 17, 15, and 10 years in prison, respectively. The Proud Boys members claim there was an 'egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system and the United States Constitution to punish and oppress political allies of President Trump, by any and all means necessary, legal, or illegal.' 'A settlement would suggest that the violence of January 6 was entirely justified,' Matthew Dallek, a political historian at The George Washington University, told The Washington Post. 'It would say to the country that these Proud Boys who were convicted in a court of law, in a fair trial, were wrongfully prosecuted and victims. It just turns the entire day on its head.' The insurrection interrupted Congress' attempt to certify former President Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. After a mob stormed the Capitol, five people died in or immediately after the violence and 140 officers were assaulted. The Daily Beast has reached out to the Trump administration for comment.

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