Latest news with #BrettM.Kavanaugh
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court overturns block on Utah railroad project
May 29 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed a ruling from a lower court Thursday that had stopped a proposed Utah railroad line based on possible environmental effects for which it wouldn't be directly responsible. "We reverse," wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in the case, in regard to a previous decision by the U.S. Court Of Appeals for D.C., which had halted a group of local Utah counties from the creation of a railroad to move oil in 2020. The counties, aligned as the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, had applied to the U. S. Surface Transportation Board to create an 88-mile rail line that would connect Utah's oil-rich Uinta Basin to the national freight rail network, in order to transport crude oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast. Despite the preparation and presentation of an environmental impact statement, or EIS, as required by federal law via the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, the project was derailed by a lawsuit. Eagle County, Colo., along with a contingent of environmental groups, sued on the basis that the coalition's EIS didn't properly analyze the potential impacts of increased oil drilling in the Uinta Basin and subsequent crude oil refinement. The Board had approved the project, but the U.S. Court Of Appeals for D.C. ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, on a judgement that declared the EIS violated NEPA due to its lack of information in regard to the drilling and refinement and vacated the whole project. Kavanaugh wrote that the "D.C. Circuit failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the Board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the [proposed] Uinta Basin Railway." He further called the creation of NEPA a "legislative acorn," which he says grew into a "judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development 'under the guise" of just a little more process." Kavanaugh wrote that Supreme Court's reversal of the D.C. Court's ruling served as a "course correction of sorts" that would bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with "common sense." Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case due to his links to the owner of an oil and gas procurement company who had included a brief of support that backed the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition.
UPI
29-05-2025
- Politics
- UPI
Supreme Court overturns block on Utah railroad project
May 29 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed a ruling from a lower court Thursday that had stopped a proposed Utah railroad line based on possible environmental effects for which it wouldn't be directly responsible. "We reverse," wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in the case, in regard to a previous decision by the U.S. Court Of Appeals for D.C., which had halted a group of local Utah counties from the creation of a railroad to move oil in 2020. The counties, aligned as the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, had applied to the U. S. Surface Transportation Board to create an 88-mile rail line that would connect Utah's oil-rich Uinta Basin to the national freight rail network, in order to transport crude oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast. Despite the preparation and presentation of an environmental impact statement, or EIS, as required by federal law via the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, the project was derailed by a lawsuit. Eagle County, Colo., along with a contingent of environmental groups, sued on the basis that the coalition's EIS didn't properly analyze the potential impacts of increased oil drilling in the Uinta Basin and subsequent crude oil refinement. The Board had approved the project, but the U.S. Court Of Appeals for D.C. ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, on a judgement that declared the EIS violated NEPA due to its lack of information in regard to the drilling and refinement and vacated the whole project. Kavanaugh wrote that the "D.C. Circuit failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the Board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the [proposed] Uinta Basin Railway." He further called the creation of NEPA a "legislative acorn," which he says grew into a "judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development 'under the guise" of just a little more process." Kavanaugh wrote that Supreme Court's reversal of the D.C. Court's ruling served as a "course correction of sorts" that would bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with "common sense." Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case due to his links to the owner of an oil and gas procurement company who had included a brief of support that backed the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court may allow church-run, publicly funded charter schools across the nation
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.
Washington Post
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Supreme Court majority seems open to religious public charter schools
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.
Los Angeles Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court may allow church-run, publicly funded charter schools across the nation
WASHINGTON — 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. 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. 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.
