Latest news with #JustinDriver
Wall Street Journal
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
The Court Should Bless Religious Charters
The Supreme Court will consider next Wednesday whether the First Amendment requires states to permit religious charter schools. The case, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, concerns what would be the nation's first religious charter school: St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. The school, a joint project of the state's two Catholic dioceses, seeks to deliver a high-quality Catholic education remotely across a large rural state. The state's charter-school board approved St. Isidore's application in 2023 after concluding that state laws requiring charter schools to be 'nonsectarian' were unconstitutional. The Oklahoma Supreme Court disagreed and ordered the board to revoke its contract. St. Isidore argues that the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause protects its right to participate in the charter-school program. Much of the commentary about the case exaggerates its scope, claiming that a ruling in St. Isidore's favor would open the doors to religion in public schools. Yale Law School's Justin Driver warned that the case threatens to 'destroy the American public school as we have known it' and 'raze foundational structures of American law and life.' This is nonsense. Although charter schools are nominally public schools, the legal issue before the court isn't concerned with traditional public schools. They are operated by school districts. They are unquestionably government actors and therefore must be secular. Neither party in the case disputes this. Charter schools, however, are privately operated and designed entities, freed from government control to promote choice for families. The Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment prohibits religious discrimination in government programs that enlist private organizations to advance public goals. The question is whether charter schools in Oklahoma are private or government actors for purposes of the U.S. Constitution. If they are private, Oklahoma can't require them to be secular; if they are governmental, it arguably must. Oklahoma officials are divided on the question. Gov. Kevin Stitt agrees with the charter-school board that St. Isidore is a private actor. Attorney General Gentner Drummond asserts that charter schools are government actors because they are called 'public schools,' receive public funds and are supervised by state regulators. He also argues that the state 'established' St. Isidore when they entered into a charter contract. But the Supreme Court has reiterated that neither the label 'public' nor public funding transforms a private actor into a governmental one. The Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa didn't become Oklahoma when they entered into a contract to operate St. Isidore as a charter school. They, like other government contractors, are private entities with constitutional rights. The school is a nonprofit corporation that existed before the contract and continues to exist despite its revocation. After all, St. Isidore is a petitioner in the case. Some charter schools, which have long embraced the label 'public,' also affirm that they are government actors. This is a mistake. Although it will have no legal consequences for traditional public schools, St. Isidore's case will have profound implications for public-education policy more broadly. Oklahoma funds a variety of schools, governmental and private, in various ways. Many states also embrace this pluralistic understanding of 'public education' by empowering parents to spend public funds on a range of options. Thirty-four states have at least one private-school-choice program, according to EdChoice, and 13 of them extend eligibility to all or most students. More than 40% of school-age children are eligible to participate, and more than 1.25 million do. Charter schools, which educate more than 3.7 million children in 47 states, are an important part of this pluralistic understanding of public education. They operate unshackled from government control to innovate and serve children's unique learning needs. Although the court is considering only the status of charter schools in Oklahoma, a decision that charter schools are government schools would threaten to place them in a legal straitjacket and undermine their very reason for being. A decision suggesting that states can transform private actors into governmental ones by slapping the label 'public' on them would also threaten the autonomy and religious liberty of private organizations that receive government funds to advance a range of public goals, including poverty alleviation, social services, healthcare and many others. Either charter schools are government actors or they aren't. If they are, the freedom they have long enjoyed, and the educational pluralism they are designed to foster, is in peril. If they aren't, the court must confront the reality that only one kind of educational pluralism is off the table in Oklahoma's charter school program: religious pluralism. The First Amendment doesn't allow that. Ms. Garnett is a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.
Boston Globe
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
States resist Trump administration's crackdown on school DEI initiatives
Arguments in one of those cases will be heard in New Hampshire on Thursday, escalating an increasingly tense standoff over the federal government's role in local education. The Trump administration is relying on a novel interpretation of civil rights law, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in 2023 overturning affirmative action in college admissions also applies to K-12 public schools. Federal officials say the ruling 'sets forth a framework' for the use of race in education generally. And they say it requires banning curriculum and programs that are targeted toward specific racial groups, or that center on concepts such as structural racism, the idea that racial discrimination is pervasive in the economy, law and other institutions. Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up But that interpretation of federal law is contested by many education officials and legal scholars. Advertisement 'The Trump administration is trying to use a relatively narrow decision and turn it into a broad holding that brings about whatever it wishes,' said Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School and an expert on the Constitution and education. Now, several court cases are teed up to determine if Washington can withhold billions of federal dollars for schools to educate low-income students, a program known as Title I. Many of the nation's poorest school districts rely heavily on the funds, but even affluent districts receive some Title I money if they serve low-income students. Related : Advertisement The pressure on K-12 public education has intensified as President Donald Trump has made clear that he intends to follow through on his threats. Last week, the administration moved to withhold federal education aid and school-meal funding from the entire state of Maine, in response to its policies on In Democratic-leaning states that oppose the move, state officials have argued they are already in compliance with federal civil rights laws. Michael F. Rice, the superintendent of public education in Michigan, said that elite college admissions was 'by definition zero sum. If you get in, I have a lesser chance of getting in.' By contrast, he said, many DEI initiatives in Michigan are 'positive sum.' By expanding literature to include diverse viewpoints or creating new pipelines for teachers that also diversify the workforce, he said, 'you have not disadvantaged anyone.' Hot-button issues around race and gender are core to this dispute, but the legal challenges may be decided on more routine procedural questions. The New Hampshire case, brought by the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, argues that the Trump administration is violating congressional regulations that say federal agencies cannot dictate matters of local curriculum or instruction. 'This case is really about some fundamental failures of process at the Department of Education,' said Sarah Hinger, a lawyer with the ACLU. Advertisement A similar challenge, brought by the American Federation of Teachers and other groups, is pending in Maryland. The Trump administration is expected to appeal any ruling against it, and these questions could eventually reach the Supreme Court. The administration has argued that diversity programs violate federal civil rights law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin. It has not offered a detailed definition of DEI, but has given hints of some programs that it might prohibit. For example, the administration has said programs that separate students by race, in order to provide targeted academic or social support, are a form of illegal segregation. It has also argued that lessons on concepts like white privilege are discriminatory toward white students, and that efforts to recruit more nonwhite teachers constitute illegal affirmative action. In a statement, Madi Biedermann, a spokesperson for the Education Department, said, 'The Trump administration will no longer allow taxpayer dollars to sponsor discrimination against students.' Title I dollars were withheld at least once before, in the 1960s, as a tool to compel school districts to desegregate. At that time, legal experts say, the federal government was enforcing the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education from a decade earlier. In 1966, shortly after Title I dollars were first allocated and when enforcement of the policy was at its most vigorous, researchers estimate that about 20% of districts in formerly Confederate states had their Title I dollars withheld or deferred. 'There is no question they can impose fiscal penalties on state and local governments that violate the law,' said David A. Super, a professor at Georgetown Law who has studied administrative law and the federal budget. Advertisement But the government must cite a clear violation of existing law, something he says the Trump administration has not yet done. The administration may also face another legal hurdle, because federal dollars for K-12 schools are allotted by Congress. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 limits the president's authority to freeze funds appropriated by Congress. Trump has said that he wants the Supreme Court to strike down that law, giving him greater power over federal spending in a variety of arenas. Many Republican-led states already have laws banning or limiting DEI in schools, and some officials in those states have agreed to the Trump administration's demands as a matter of course. Texas, for example, is asking districts to sign onto the federal government's new diversity directives by the April 23 deadline, noting that it 'reinforces' existing policies in the state. In Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis set an early model for Trump's education policies, school districts said they expected few changes. 'Here in Florida, there's no anticipated impact,' said Keyla Concepción, a spokesperson for Broward County Public Schools. Nationwide, public schools receive only about 10 percent of their funding from the federal government – much less than many colleges, which rely on federal research grants and tuition aid. But for many districts, like Los Angeles, the loss of those funds would still be a significant blow. Alberto Carvalho, the superintendent of Los Angeles' public schools, said his district received more than $1 billion in federal funds annually, which support teachers' aides, free meals and mental health counselors. Advertisement He noted that his district was not opposed to making changes in response to federal scrutiny. But in this case, he said, Trump's directives contradict California state regulations on how schools should handle race and gender issues. Carvalho added that he had not been surprised to see K-12 leaders across the country rise up to resist the president, given the vulnerability of many of the children enrolled in public education. 'We are morally compelled and legally required,' he said, 'to protect their rights.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
New York Times
17-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
A Legal Battle Over Trump's Threats to Public School Funding Has Begun
The Trump administration is facing lawsuits and growing pushback over its demand that all 50 states end the use of what it says are illegal diversity programs in public schools or risk losing federal funding for low-income students. About a dozen mostly Democratic-leaning states including California, New York and Michigan, have refused to sign on to the administration's directive. The nation's two largest teachers' unions, along with the N.A.A.C.P., are challenging the demand in federal court. Arguments in one of those cases will be heard in New Hampshire on Thursday, escalating an increasingly tense standoff over the federal government's role in local education. The Trump administration is relying on a novel interpretation of civil rights law, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in 2023 overturning affirmative action in college admissions also applies to K-12 public schools. Federal officials say the ruling 'sets forth a framework' for the use of race in education generally. And they say it requires banning curriculum and programs that are targeted toward specific racial groups, or that center on concepts such as structural racism, the idea that racial discrimination is pervasive in the economy, law and other institutions. But that interpretation of federal law is contested by many education officials and legal scholars. 'The Trump administration is trying to use a relatively narrow decision and turn it into a broad holding that brings about whatever it wishes,' said Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School and an expert on the Constitution and education. Now, several court cases are teed up to determine if Washington can withhold billions of federal dollars for schools to educate low-income students, a program known as Title I. Many of the nation's poorest school districts rely heavily on the funds, but even affluent districts receive some Title I money if they serve low-income students. The pressure on K-12 public education has intensified as Mr. Trump has made clear that he intends to follow through on his threats. Last week, the administration moved to withhold federal education aid and school-meal funding from the entire state of Maine, in response to its policies on transgender athletes. It has threatened to do the same to California, because of its policies around parental notification for transgender students. In Democratic-leaning states that oppose the move, state officials have argued they are already in compliance with federal civil rights laws. Michael F. Rice, the superintendent of public education in Michigan, said that elite college admissions was 'by definition zero sum. If you get in, I have a lesser chance of getting in.' By contrast, he said, many D.E.I. initiatives in Michigan are 'positive sum.' By expanding literature to include diverse viewpoints or creating new pipelines for teachers that also diversify the work force, he said, 'you have not disadvantaged anyone.' Chris Reykdal, the superintendent in Washington State, vowed to go to court if needed to defend state and local control over education. In a letter responding to the Trump administration, he wrote that diversity, equity and inclusion were 'core values' in Washington State's education system and that 'we will not suppress or cede that to the federal government.' 'I'm not hiding this in order to keep federal money,' he said in an interview. 'I'm saying, it's what makes us successful and we should all celebrate and be more vocal.' Hot-button issues around race and gender are core to this dispute, but the legal challenges may be decided on more routine procedural questions. The New Hampshire case, brought by the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, argues that the Trump administration is violating congressional regulations that say federal agencies cannot dictate matters of local curriculum or instruction. 'This case is really about some fundamental failures of process at the Department of Education,' said Sarah Hinger, a lawyer with the A.C.L.U. A similar challenge, brought by the American Federation of Teachers and other groups, is pending in Maryland. The Trump administration is expected to appeal any ruling against it, and these questions could eventually reach the Supreme Court. The administration has argued that diversity programs violate federal civil rights law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin. It has not offered a detailed definition of D.E.I., but has given hints of some programs that it might prohibit. For example, the administration has said programs that separate students by race, in order to provide targeted academic or social support, are a form of illegal segregation. It has also argued that lessons on concepts like white privilege are discriminatory toward white students, and that efforts to recruit more nonwhite teachers constitute illegal affirmative action. In a statement, Madi Biedermann, a spokeswoman for the Education Department, said, 'The Trump administration will no longer allow taxpayer dollars to sponsor discrimination against students.' Title I dollars were withheld at least once before, in the 1960s, as a tool to compel school districts to desegregate. At that time, legal experts say, the federal government was enforcing the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education from a decade earlier. In 1966, shortly after Title I dollars were first allocated and when enforcement of the policy was at its most vigorous, researchers estimate that about 20 percent of districts in formerly Confederate states had their Title I dollars withheld or deferred. 'There is no question they can impose fiscal penalties on state and local governments that violate the law,' said David A. Super, a professor at Georgetown Law who has studied administrative law and the federal budget. But the government must cite a clear violation of existing law, something he says the Trump administration has not yet done. The administration may also face another legal hurdle, because federal dollars for K-12 schools are allotted by Congress. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 limits the president's authority to freeze funds appropriated by Congress. Mr. Trump has said that he wants the Supreme Court to strike down that law, giving him greater power over federal spending in a variety of arenas. Many Republican-led states already have laws banning or limiting D.E.I. in schools, and some officials in those states have agreed to the Trump administration's demands as a matter of course. Texas, for example, is asking districts to sign onto the federal government's new diversity directives by the April 23 deadline, noting that it 'reinforces' existing policies in the state. In Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis set an early model for Mr. Trump's education policies, school districts said they expected few changes. 'Here in Florida, there's no anticipated impact,' said Keyla Concepción, a spokeswoman for Broward County Public Schools. Nationwide, public schools receive only about 10 percent of their funding from the federal government — much less than many colleges, which rely on federal research grants and tuition aid. But for many districts, like Los Angeles, the loss of those funds would still be a significant blow. Alberto Carvalho, the superintendent of Los Angeles's public schools, said his district received more than $1 billion in federal funds annually, which support teachers' aides, free meals and mental health counselors. He noted that his district was not opposed to making changes in response to federal scrutiny. But in this case, he said, Mr. Trump's directives contradict California state regulations on how schools should handle race and gender issues. Mr. Carvalho added that he had not been surprised to see K-12 leaders across the country rise up to resist the president, given the vulnerability of many of the children enrolled in public education. 'We are morally compelled and legally required,' he said, 'to protect their rights.'
