Latest news with #FreeExerciseClause
NBC News
22-05-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court deadlocks 4-4 on nation's first religious charter school
WASHINGTON — Oklahoma will not be able to launch the nation's first religious public charter school after the Supreme Court on Thursday deadlocked 4-4 in a major case on the separation of church and state. The decision by the evenly divided court means that a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that said the proposal to launch St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School violates both the federal Constitution and state law remains in place. As there was no majority, the court did not issue a written decision, and the case sets no nationwide precedent on the contentious legal question of whether religious schools must be able to participate in taxpayer-funded state charter school programs. A key factor in the outcome was that conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who would have been the deciding vote, did not participate in the case. She did not explain why, but it is likely because of her ties with Notre Dame Law School. The law school's religious liberty clinic represents the school. The one-page decision did not say how each justice voted. During oral arguments last month, most of the court's conservatives indicated support for the school while liberals expressed concern. At least one conservative is likely to have sided with the liberals, most likely Chief Justice John Roberts. The court will likely be asked to weigh in on the issue in future cases. St. Isidore would have operated online statewide with a remit to promote the Catholic faith. The case highlights tensions within the Constitution's First Amendment; one provision, the Establishment Clause, prohibits state endorsement of religion or preference for one religion over another, while another, the Free Exercise Clause, bars religious discrimination. The Oklahoma Supreme Court had cited the state's interest in steering clear of Establishment Clause violations as a reason not to allow the proposal submitted by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to move forward. A state board approved the proposal for St. Isidore in June 2023 despite concerns about its religious nature, prompting Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond to file suit. The case saw Drummond on the opposite side of fellow Republicans in the state who backed the idea, but he prevailed at the Oklahoma Supreme Court the following year. The Supreme Court, when Barrett is participating, has a 6-3 conservative majority that often backs religious rights. In recent years it has repeatedly strengthened the Free Exercise Clause in cases brought by conservative religious liberty activists, sometimes at the expense of the Establishment Clause. Some conservatives have long complained that the common understanding that the Establishment Clause requires strict separation of church and state is incorrect. Lawyers representing the school and the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board sought to portray the dispute as similar to a series of recent rulings in which the court said that under the Free Exercise Clause, states cannot bar religious groups from government programs that are open to everyone else. During the oral argument, Roberts pushed back, indicating that he saw the schools case as different from the previous decisions. Those cases, he said, 'involved fairly discrete state involvement' compared with Oklahoma's charter school program. 'This does strike me as a much more comprehensive involvement,' he added. The push for religious public charter schools dovetails with the school choice movement, which supports parents using taxpayer funds to send their children to private school. Public school advocates see both efforts as broad assaults on traditional public schools.
CNBC
22-05-2025
- Politics
- CNBC
Supreme Court deadlocks 4-4 on nation's first religious charter school
WASHINGTON — Oklahoma will not be able to launch the nation's first religious public charter school after the Supreme Court on Thursday deadlocked 4-4 in a major case on the separation of church and state. The decision by the evenly divided court means that a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that said the proposal to launch St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School violates both the federal Constitution and state law remains in place. As there was no majority, the court did not issue a written decision, and the case sets no nationwide precedent on the contentious legal question of whether religious schools must be able to participate in taxpayer-funded state charter school programs. A key factor in the outcome was that conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who would have been the deciding vote, did not participate in the case. She did not explain why, but it is likely because of her ties with Notre Dame Law School. The law school's religious liberty clinic represents the school. The one-page decision did not say how each justice voted. During oral arguments last month, most of the court's conservatives indicated support for the school while liberals expressed concern. At least one conservative is likely to have sided with the liberals, most likely Chief Justice John Roberts. The court will likely be asked to weigh in on the issue in future cases. St. Isidore would have operated online statewide with a remit to promote the Catholic faith. The case highlights tensions within the Constitution's First Amendment; one provision, the Establishment Clause, prohibits state endorsement of religion or preference for one religion over another, while another, the Free Exercise Clause, bars religious discrimination. The Oklahoma Supreme Court had cited the state's interest in steering clear of Establishment Clause violations as a reason not to allow the proposal submitted by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to move forward. The Oklahoma Supreme Court had cited the state's interest in steering clear of Establishment Clause violations as a reason not to allow the proposal submitted by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to move forward. A state board approved the proposal for St. Isidore in June 2023 despite concerns about its religious nature, prompting Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond to file suit. The case saw Drummond on the opposite side of fellow Republicans in the state who backed the idea, but he prevailed at the Oklahoma Supreme Court the following year. The Supreme Court, when Barrett is participating, has a 6-3 conservative majority that often backs religious rights. In recent years it has repeatedly strengthened the Free Exercise Clause in cases brought by conservative religious liberty activists, sometimes at the expense of the Establishment Clause. Some conservatives have long complained that the common understanding that the Establishment Clause requires strict separation of church and state is incorrect. Lawyers representing the school and the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board sought to portray the dispute as similar to a series of recent rulings in which the court has said that under the Free Exercise Clause states cannot bar religious groups from government programs that are open to everyone else. The push for religious public charter schools dovetails with the school choice movement, which supports parents using taxpayer funds to send their children to private school. Public school advocates see both efforts as broad assaults on traditional public schools.
NBC News
22-05-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court sidesteps major ruling on religious public charter schools
WASHINGTON — Oklahoma will not be able to launch the nation's first ever religious public charter school after the Supreme Court on Thursday deadlocked 4-4 in a major case on the separation of church and state. The decision by the evenly divided court means that a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that said the proposal to launch St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School violates both the federal Constitution and state law remains in place. As there was no majority, the court did not issue a written decision, and the case sets no nationwide precedent on the contentious legal question of whether religious schools must be able to participate in taxpayer-funded state charter school programs. A key factor in the outcome was that conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who would have been the deciding vote, did not participate in the case. She did not explain why, but it is likely because of her ties with Notre Dame Law School. The law school's religious liberty clinic represents the charter school. The court will likely be asked to weigh in on the issue in future cases. St Isidore would have operated online statewide with a remit to promote the Catholic faith. The case highlights tensions within the Constitution's First Amendment; one provision, the Establishment Clause, prohibits state endorsement of religion or preference for one religion over another, while another, the Free Exercise Clause, bars religious discrimination. The Oklahoma Supreme Court had cited the state's interest in steering clear of Establishment Clause violations as a reason not to allow the proposal submitted by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to move forward. A state board approved the proposal for St. Isidore in June 2023 despite concerns about its religious nature, prompting Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond to file suit. The case saw Drummond on the opposite side to fellow Republicans in the state who backed the idea, but he prevailed at the Oklahoma Supreme Court the following year. The Supreme Court, when Barrett is participating, has a 6-3 conservative majority that often backs religious rights. In recent years it has repeatedly strengthened the Free Exercise Clause in cases brought by conservative religious liberty activists, sometimes at the expense of the Establishment Clause. Some conservatives have long complained that the common understanding that the Establishment Clause requires strict separation of church and state is incorrect. Lawyers representing the school and the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board sought to portray the dispute as similar to a series of recent rulings in which the court has said that under the Free Exercise Clause states cannot bar religious groups from government programs that are open to everyone else. The push for religious public charter schools dovetails with the school choice movement, which supports parents using taxpayer funds to send their children to private school. Public school advocates see both efforts as broad assaults on traditional public schools.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: A Way Out of SCOTUS Charter School Ruling Mess: Focus on Mission, Not Religion
On April 30, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could compel states with charter school laws to authorize religious charters. Reporters from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and The 74 said the court's conservative majority bloc appeared 'open to' religious charter schools. Such a ruling would be bad for the country and deeply disruptive. It could upend the charter school sector, raising questions about the constitutionality of the federal charter school law and the laws in 47 states, all of which require charters to be nonsectarian. It could lead to blue states cutting back on charter schools and red states seeing a flood of religious charters open up, which would further balkanize an already divided country. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Is there any hope? The best outcome would be if one of the conservative justices — most likely Chief Justice John Roberts — ended up siding with the liberal justices and rejecting a requirement that authorizers must permit religious charter schools. The second-best outcome would be if policymakers took creative steps (as I outline below) to comply with an adverse Supreme Court ruling while preserving social cohesion and retaining for charter schools the flexibility they need to flourish. I have a modest hope that Roberts's vote may be in play. If he votes with the court's three liberal justices, a 4-4 decision would let stand the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision opposing religious charters. (Justice Amy Coney Barrett is recused in the case.) In the oral arguments, the justices homed in on the central question in the case: Are charters public or private? If they are public, then the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits them from being religious. If they are private, by contrast, the court's interpretations of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause that government cannot discriminate against religious schools would apply. Related In Case the Choice World 'Dreaded,' Justices Appear Open to Religious Charters Roberts asked tough questions of both sides, but the most hopeful moment came when he noted that the state has 'a much more comprehensive involvement' in charter schools than in private schools, which could tilt his thinking against religious charters. Greg Garre, who served as solicitor general under former President George W. Bush, made a powerful case that charter schools are public. He noted that private schools differ from charter schools in eight respects: 'Private schools can open without any state approval.' 'There are no requirements or supervision of curriculum for private schools.' Private schools 'can charge tuition.' Private schools 'can restrict admissions.' Private schools are 'not subject to general state assessment tests.' Private schools are 'not subject to nearly the reporting requirements or oversight as public schools' Private schools 'not subject to state rules regarding student discipline, civil rights [and] health' 'There's no process for closing' private schools 'short of consumer fraud.' If Roberts nevertheless decides, along with other conservatives, that charter schools are private schools, and states are compelled to authorize religious charters, that would set off a number of consequences. First, blue states are likely to rebel. As Justice Neil Gorsuch noted, some states may begin 'imposing more requirements on charter schools,' essentially making them more 'public.' For a sector that thrives on independence, this could constitute a 'boomerang effect.' Second, red states are likely to see a number of religious private schools convert to charter status. As Justice Elena Kagan noted, 'There's a big incentive to operating charter schools, since everything is funded for you.' She expected to see 'a line out the door' of applicants. Third, there is likely to be more litigation. As the justices asked in the oral argument: If charters are deemed private schools, then does that mean a conservative Christian charter school could, as a matter of religious liberty, bar the admissions of Jewish, Muslim and gay students? Could the same school discriminate against gay or non-Christian faculty members? Could it reject state standards requiring that it teach evolution? Related Supreme Court Must Not Undermine Public Education in Religious Charter Case I found this all very depressing, but there was one compelling moment in the oral argument that gave me some hope and sparked an idea about how state charter school boards could minimize the damage of a negative Supreme Court decision: focus on the question of a school's mission. At one point during the argument, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a hypothetical question. If the government wanted to commission a mural and a religious painter wanted to include religious images, could the government reject that approach? Yes, said James Campbell, the attorney for the charter school board, because in that case, 'the government is trying to speak its own message on its own buildings.' He claimed that the charter school law in Oklahoma, by contrast, gives 'broad autonomy to the schools to come up with their own mission.' Under that logic, what if charter school laws were amended to say that applicant schools were free to identify a number of missions, but that they had to identify as their ultimate mission teaching the liberal democratic values that bind together Americans of all backgrounds? That's already a central premise built into the constitutions and laws of many states. As Albert Shanker, who first brought the idea of public charter schools to the national stage, argued, the primary mission of public education is to teach these values, which is bound up in 'what it means to be an American.' Related States Should Support Religious Education — But Not Through Charter Schools Teaching liberal democratic values is probably consistent with the approach of most religious charter schools, but few are likely to agree that this is their most important mission. The Oklahoma school at the center of the Supreme Court case, St. Isadore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, says its 'ultimate goal' is 'eternal salvation.' For many religious leaders, saying that promoting liberal democracy is their school's primary mission would constitute blasphemy. When former President Joe Biden called the ideals in America's founding documents 'sacred,' a Catholic priest objected in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, saying, 'America isn't sacred. Only God is.' The test for charter school applicants wouldn't be religious; it would be one of mission. Not every religious school would fail the test, and not every secular school would pass it. If the government is entitled to 'speak its own message on its own building,' why can't a state ask the schools it funds to advance as their central message the preservation of liberal democracy?
Bloomberg
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
If Religious Charter Schools Are Greenlit, Don't Panic
This week's Supreme Court oral argument over whether the Constitution requires that religious groups be allowed to sponsor charter schools has provoked much worry. Strict separationists are concerned that the wall between church and state will crumble. Supporters of educational alternatives fear that many states will abandon charters altogether if the Free Exercise Clause means religious institutions must be allowed to participate. Both may be reasons for prudence. Neither is a reason to panic.
