Latest news with #EstablishmentClause
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Trump v. Hawaii: Explaining case cited in new US travel ban order affecting Cuba and Haiti
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a proclamation imposing travel restrictions on 19 countries, including a complete ban on nationals from 12 countries. The affected nations include Cuba and Haiti. The White House cited the Trump vs Hawaii (2018) as a legal precedent in its latest press release. The proclamation, enacted under Executive Order 14161, fully bans entry from 12 nations and partially restricts seven, including Cuba (partial) and Haiti (full), to combat terrorism and national security risks. Trump v. Hawaii upheld the president's authority to restrict entry, a ruling central to the new ban's justification. Trump v. Hawaii (585 US 667) challenged Proclamation No. 9645, Trump's third travel ban, issued on September 24, 2017. It restricted entry from eight countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen), citing deficient vetting and security risks. Hawaii, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and others sued, alleging the ban violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by targeting Muslims. The case centered on whether the president's authority under INA Section 212(f) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f))—allowing suspension of entry for foreigners deemed 'detrimental' to US interests—was lawful and whether the ban was motivated by anti-Muslim bias. On June 26, 2018, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court upheld the ban. The majority ruled: Presidential Authority: Section 212(f) grants the president broad discretion to suspend entry when national security is at stake, supported by a worldwide review of vetting processes. No Religious Discrimination: The ban was facially neutral, based on security concerns, not anti-Muslim animus, despite Trump's campaign statements. The Court applied rational basis review, finding the ban had a 'legitimate purpose." Dissent: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented, arguing the ban was rooted in anti-Muslim rhetoric, violating the Establishment Clause, and drawing parallels to Korematsu v. United States (1944). The 2025 proclamation relies on Trump v. Haiti to justify restrictions under Section 212(f), citing the same authority upheld in 2018. The new ban targets countries like Haiti (31.38% B1/B2 visa overstay rate) and Cuba (state sponsor of terrorism) for inadequate vetting and security risks.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Amy Coney Barrett Decision Gives Libs Win in Shock SCOTUS Ruling
Oklahoma will not be able to use government money to fund a Catholic charter school, the Supreme Court ruled after Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case. In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the Supreme Court rejected the proposal for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School to receive direct government funding in a 4-4 split ruling on Thursday. In instances where the justices are evenly split, the lower court ruling—in this case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court—stands. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' the one-page ruling simply said. It did not note how each justice had voted. The lower court ruled that plans to open the nation's first-ever government-funded religious charter school were prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one faith over another. While the split means the lower-court ruling stands, it does not set a precedent for other courts across the country to follow. It was not immediately clear why Justice Coney Barrett—whom President Donald Trump appointed in 2020—recused herself from the case, which meant she did not take part in oral arguments or the final ruling. The New York Times speculated that Coney Barrett's decision could have stemmed from her close relationship with Nicole Stelle Garnett, who was previously an adviser for the Oklahoma school. Coney Barrett and Garnett worked together at the Supreme Court in the 1990s before becoming colleagues at Notre Dame Law School. Coney Barrett has fallen out of the MAGA crowd in recent months after siding with her liberal counterparts in some high-profile cases. In one of those decisions in March, she sided with the court's liberal wing to block the White House's effort to freeze almost $2 billion in foreign aid. The decision Thursday prompted some MAGA supporters to label Coney Barrett a 'DEI pick,' referring to 'diversity, equity, and inclusion.' MAGA influencer Mike Cernovich wrote: 'She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes... Another DEI hire. It always ends badly.' The proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School was set to be run by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa. It would have been the first school to teach Catholicism to students while receiving taxpayer funds. The original proposal for the school was approved in June 2023; Oklahoma's Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted to approve the school in a tight 3-2 ballot after a nearly three-hour meeting. But the state's attorney general, Gentner Drummond, sued over the decision in a bid to prevent the school from opening.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A Split Supreme Court Says Oklahoma Can't Have a Religious Charter School
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that Oklahoma cannot allow the creation of a religious charter school. The deadlocked 4–4 ruling kept a lower court's previous decision in place without explaining the justices' rationale. The case stems from a plan to allow the creation of a public Catholic charter school called St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. While Oklahoma's charter school board initially approved the school in 2023, the state's attorney general asked the state Supreme Court to intervene. Both sides made arguments that appeal to religious freedom. The state argued that it would violate the Establishment Clause to allow a religious school to receive public funds and operate as a public school. St. Isidore, on the other hand, argued that a ban on religious charter schools would essentially be religious discrimination. Charter schools are allowed to abide by a wide range of educational philosophies; therefore only targeting religious pedagogy is unfair. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state. "What St. Isidore requests from this Court is beyond the fair treatment of a private religious institution in receiving a generally available benefit," reads the state Supreme Court's 2024 opinion. "It is about the State's creation and funding of a new religious institution violating the Establishment Clause." The case poses tough questions about under which circumstances the state can fund religious institutions—many states, for example, already allow parents to use public money to send their children to private religious schools through school choice programs. Unfortunately, the Court's decision didn't create much clarity. While the 4-4 decision leaves the state Supreme Court's ruling in place, it did not include an explanation from the justices, nor did it reveal how they voted. (Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, likely due to her affiliation with Notre Dame Law School, whose religious liberties legal clinic helped defend the charter school in the case.) This most recent deadlock at the Supreme Court shows just how murky debates over where religious discrimination ends and religious establishment begins can be. "This is a rock-and-a-hard-place situation for the Supreme Court," Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, wrote for Reason last month. "Rule against St. Isidore, and discrimination against religion wins. Rule for it, and dangerous government entanglement will ensue." The post A Split Supreme Court Says Oklahoma Can't Have a Religious Charter School appeared first on
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court's one-sentence order closes the door to Catholic charter school – but leaves it open for future challenges
The saga over St. Isidore of Seville, which hoped to become the nation's first religious charter school, has come to a surprising end – for now. In April 2025, Supreme Court justices heard arguments in the case from Oklahoma, which dealt with how to interpret the First Amendment's religion clauses. Proponents argued that prohibiting local public school boards from contracting with a faith-based organization would be unconstitutional because it hinders 'free exercise' of religion. Critics warned a faith-based charter would be an unconstitutional breach of the 'establishment clause,' which forbids the government from establishing an official religion or promoting particular faiths over others. Both sides anticipated a pivotal ruling. However, in an anticlimatic outcome, the Supreme Court issued a brief order May 22, 2025. The 4-4 outcome leaves a lower court judgment in place that prevented St. Isidore's from opening – but did not explain why. The Conversation U.S. asked Charles Russo, who teaches education law at the University of Dayton, to walk us through what happened. What does the order do? On its face, the Supreme Court's terse, one-sentence opinion means that Oklahoma cannot presently create and fund a Roman Catholic charter school – an online K-12 institution. However, because the Supreme Court did not address the underlying merits of the claim, it arguably leaves the door open to similar challenges in Oklahoma and elsewhere. Two items stand out as unusual here. First, the justices issued what is called a 'per curiam' opinion, which means 'by the court.' These opinions are unsigned, without any dissents – an unexpected outcome for such an important topic. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have defended religious freedom vociferously under both the establishment and free exercise clauses, including in education. So, it would have been insightful to read their arguments about why the creation of St. Isidore would be permissible under the Establishment Clause. Second, Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case, without offering a reason. Many court observers suggested she did so due to her friendships with legal scholars at Notre Dame who were involved in St. Isidore's defense. Was this the expected outcome? Based on oral arguments, it was going to be a close call involving the eight justices. On the one hand, Alito and Thomas seemed to find St. Isidore's argument persuasive, as did Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Conversely, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared skeptical. The wild card, so to speak, was Chief Justice John Roberts, author of the court's three most recent opinions supporting government aid to religious schools. The first of these cases allowed assistance to enhance playground safety in a Missouri preschool facility. The second held that it was constitutional for parents sending their children to faith-based institutions to participate in Montana's educational tax credit program. The most recent ruled that Maine's tuition assistance to parents in districts lacking public secondary schools can be used at religious institutions. During oral arguments, Roberts observed that St. Isidore's creation seems like 'much more comprehensive [state] involvement' with a religious organization, compared with the previous cases expanding aid to faith-based schools. His comment left the door open to speculation over how he might vote – though, of course, because this was an unsigned opinion, we do not know. The Oklahoma case is part of to . Is this much of a setback for that movement? At this point, supporters of St. Isidore are likely left without options. The state's own Supreme Court ruling – left in place by the U.S. Supreme Court – was grounded in both its own and the federal constitutions. However, the movement to allow more government funding toward religious education continues. While the dispute over St. Isidore attempted to let Oklahoma, and perhaps other states, directly fund faith-based schools, this part of the school-choice movement has had more success with indirect forms of funding, like vouchers and tax credits. At least 17 states have already adopted various universal school choice laws, meaning families who send their children to private religious schools are eligible for such programs. Most recently, on May 3, 2025, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas signed the nation's largest school voucher program law into effect. The law, which sets aside US$1 billion in funding for the 2026-2027 academic year, allows parents up to about $10,500 to pay for tuition and school-related expenses at accredited non-public schools, including faith-based ones. Parents of children with disabilities can receive up to $30,000. At the federal level, supporters of a school choice bill promoting vouchers for non-public schools introduced a bill in the House of Representatives in May 2025. In sum, a key question remains over the meaning of the dispute concerning St. Isidore. There are two possible interpretations. First, the case may signal an end to the court's expanding aid to parents and students under the Establishment Clause. Second, it seems the justices were hesitant to allow funding to create what would have been the nation's first-ever charter school under the control of religious officials. Round 1 is over, but there's likely more to come. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Charles J. Russo, University of Dayton Read more: 19th-century Catholic teachings, 21st-century tech: How concerns about AI guided Pope Leo's choice of name How Jefferson and Madison's partnership – a friendship told in letters – shaped America's separation of church and state Federal judge rules that Louisiana shalt not require public schools to post the Ten Commandments Charles J. Russo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court upholds Oklahoma decision, in blow to religious charter schools
An evenly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against a religious school that sought public funding from the state of Oklahoma. In a 4-4 vote, the justices upheld the Oklahoma State Supreme Court's decision that for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in Oklahoma City to receive public funds would be unconstitutional. Justice Amy Coney Barrett had recused herself from the case. The court issued a one-sentence ruling upholding the lower court's decision, saying only: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court." Oklahoma has argued that providing state funds for a religious charter school violates the First Amendment. Trump Faces Another Deportation Setback With 4Th Circuit Appeals Court The Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved St. Isidore's contract request in June 2023, making them eligible to receive public funds. The school agreed that it would be free and open to all students "as a traditional public school," and would comply with local, state and federal education laws. Read On The Fox News App But St. Isidore also indicated that the school "fully embraces the teachings" of the Catholic Church and participates "in the evangelizing mission of the church." Its ability to receive state funding was later blocked by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which ruled that using the funds for a religious school was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued to block the approval of the school's state charter, calling it an "unlawful sponsorship" of a sectarian institution, and "a serious threat to the religious liberty of all four-million Oklahomans." That argument was appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case in October. In more than two hours of wide-ranging oral arguments last month, justices appeared split along ideological lines over whether to allow St. Isidore to become the first religious charter school in the U.S. The justices focused on two questions during the oral arguments: First was whether charter schools should be treated as public schools, which are considered extensions of the state and therefore subject to the Establishment Cause and its ban establishing or endorsing a religion; or if the school should be considered a private entity or contractor, which was the argument made by St. Isidore. The second question was whether Oklahoma's actions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, by placing what the school argues is an undue burden on its religious mission. 100 Days Of Injunctions, Trials And 'Teflon Don': Trump Second Term Meets Its Biggest Tests In Court The decision comes as the Supreme Court's conservative majority has, in recent years, ruled in favor of allowing taxpayer funds to be allocated to some religious organizations to provide "non-sectarian services" such as adoption services or food banks. In this case, the justices debated what limits on curriculum supervision and control would be placed on the religious charter school, if its contract with the state was allowed to move forward. Justices Kentanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan pressed attorneys for the school on how they would treat students with different religious backgrounds who might opt to attend. There is no indication of how each justice ultimately article source: Supreme Court upholds Oklahoma decision, in blow to religious charter schools
