Latest news with #SevilleCatholicVirtualSchool
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Approval of Oklahoma religious charter school would not violate Constitution
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School does not yet exist, but it may soon decide the future of religious liberty in public education. Approved as a public charter school by Oklahoma's Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, St. Isidore plans to offer tuition-free education grounded in Catholic teaching — to all, required of none, and publicly accountable. Its opponents argue that a religious school should never receive public funding, even if it meets every academic and legal standard. But their objection reveals a deeper question: Does the First Amendment require the government to exclude religious institutions from public life, or does it forbid that exclusion? That question is not rhetorical. It defines whether neutrality means fairness — or forced secularism. It tests whether religious families are full citizens in a pluralist democracy — or guests, welcome only on secular terms. The First Amendment contains two clauses, often cited as if they compete, but in truth they complete each other: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' These words are not in tension. They are in balance. One forbids the state from controlling religion through top-down mandates (such as requiring the Bible to be taught in every public school classroom). The other forbids it from excluding religion when it is a bottom-up expression of the people. Together, they form a constitutional architecture that neither privileges belief nor penalizes it. James Madison, author of the First Amendment, insisted that religion was not a right granted by government but a natural liberty. In his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," he wrote that religion must be left to 'the conviction and conscience of every man.' Government could neither compel nor suppress it. The modern phrase 'separation of church and state' appears nowhere in the Constitution. It comes from a private letter by Thomas Jefferson, who — ironically ― attended religious services held inside government buildings. Separation, to the Founders, meant institutional noninterference, not spiritual exclusion. Religious participation in public life was assumed — not feared. To exclude a faith-based school from a neutral public program today is not fidelity to the First Amendment. It is the exact opposite. More: Drummond: Allowing St. Isidore school would threaten religious liberty | Opinion The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken plainly: A religious institution cannot be excluded from a public benefit program simply because it is religious. In Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017), Missouri denied a church preschool access to a public playground resurfacing grant solely due to its religious status. The court ruled this exclusion unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts called it 'odious to our Constitution.' In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), the court held that if a state provides public scholarships to private schools, it cannot deny them to religious schools because of their religious identity. 'A State need not subsidize private education,' the court said. 'But once it decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.' Two years later, Carson v. Makin (2022) extended this logic from religious status to religious use. Maine had denied tuition assistance to parents who selected schools that provided religious instruction. The court ruled this, too, unconstitutional. Finally, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the court upheld a school choice program that allowed public funds to follow families — whether they chose secular or religious schools — so long as the program was neutral and driven by individual choice. The line across these cases is unbroken: When the government opens a public benefit to private participants, it may not disqualify religious institutions merely because they are religious. That principle is not advisory. It is controlling law. More: OK must improve education. Supreme Court should allow religious charter school. | Opinion Attorney General Gentner Drummond argues that charter schools are public in every constitutional sense — that because they are funded and authorized by the state, they must remain strictly secular. But that logic confuses funding with control, and oversight with ownership. Oklahoma law defines charter schools as nonprofit entities initiated by private actors through a contract with the state. They are publicly accountable but independently operated. The state does not dictate curriculum, hiring or religious affiliation — nor should it. This distinction is critical under Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982), where the Supreme Court ruled that even a privately operated school receiving over 90% of its funding from the government was not a state actor. The key issue was who made internal decisions — not who wrote the checks. In Mitchell v. Helms (2000), the court upheld public aid to religious schools, so long as the aid was neutral and distributed without favor or control. That principle governs here. Charter schools are private educational partners within a public system — not government entities. If funding alone made them government entities, the same would apply to hospitals, foster agencies and food banks. And yet, religious organizations partner in all of those spheres — without controversy, and without violating the Constitution. Attorney General Drummond relies on mid-20th-century Establishment Clause cases — Engel v. Vitale (1962), School District of Abington v. Schempp (1963), and McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) — to argue that religious expression in any publicly funded school violates the Constitution. But these cases addressed a very different context: state-mandated religious practice inside traditional public schools. In Engel, the state composed a prayer and required its recitation. In Schempp, Bible readings were compulsory. In McCollum, religious instructors entered public classrooms during school hours under state authority. None of these apply to a privately initiated, independently operated charter school selected voluntarily by families. St. Isidore imposes no religious exercise. It is not the state mandating prayer — it is the community requesting a public option that reflects its convictions. It does not conscript students into belief. It invites families into a curriculum they freely choose. The Establishment Clause prohibits government imposition — not religious presence in public life. A school like St. Isidore does not violate that clause. It fulfills the balance the Founders intended: a state that neither commands faith nor forbids it. To invoke Engel or Schempp against such a model is not constitutional fidelity. It is historical misapplication. Opponents of St. Isidore argue that public education must remain entirely secular because taxpayer dollars are involved. But this objection collapses under the one feature that changes everything: parental choice. The Supreme Court has consistently held that when parents — not the government — choose where public funds go, the state does not endorse religion by permitting religious options. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the court upheld a school voucher program even though many parents selected religious schools. The decisive factor was this: The program was neutral and the funding flowed through individual family decisions. This echoes Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), which affirmed that 'the child is not the mere creature of the state.' Parents have a constitutional right to direct their children's education. And in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the court went further — holding that religious communities could withdraw from state schooling altogether to preserve their faith formation. St. Isidore is not imposed. It is chosen. It is not the state prescribing theology — it is the state respecting the constitutional primacy of the family. When the government offers diverse public options, it cannot punish parents who choose a religious one. That's not neutrality. That's control. Brian Montgomery is a licensed occupational injury examiner in Oklahoma with significant experience in both insurance and ministry. A native of Cyril, Oklahoma, Brian holds a bachelor's degree from East Central University and a master's degree from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Court should rule in Okla. religious charter school's favor | Opinion
New York Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Justices Seemed Open to Allowing a Religious Charter School
The Supreme Court appeared open today to allowing Oklahoma to use government money to run the nation's first religious charter school. A decision in favor of the school could lead to the opening of similar institutions across the country and lower the wall separating church and state. The main question in the case is whether the First Amendment permits states to sponsor and finance religious charter schools. In other words, the Supreme Court is deciding whether charter schools, which are publicly funded and privately run, are fundamentally public or private. During arguments today, the court's conservative justices were largely sympathetic to the school, while the liberal ones were quite wary. However, Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case without explanation. That left the court's chief justice, John Roberts, with the likely deciding vote. He was less pointed than the other Republican appointees but still expressed doubt that religious charter schools were different from other groups the court had protected from discrimination. The case is one of the most significant of the term, so the court will probably not issue a decision until late June or early July. For more: The school at the heart of the case, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, is named for the patron saint of the internet. If the Supreme Court permits it to proceed, it would open as an online school. A look behind Trump's migrant deal with El Salvador The Trump administration recently sent a letter to officials in El Salvador requesting the return of a migrant who had been wrongly deported. Salvadoran officials, according to people with knowledge of the matter, said no. It was unclear, however, whether it was a genuine effort or window dressing to appear in compliance with a Supreme Court ruling. President Trump acknowledged in an interview yesterday that he could free the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, but that he wouldn't because he believed he was a gang member. Last month, El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, had expressed concerns about the deportations. He asked U.S. officials for assurances that the men were all gang members, causing the Americans to scramble to get him evidence. The incident raised questions about whether the Trump administration had sufficiently assessed those it had dispatched to a foreign prison. My colleagues learned of Bukele's concerns when they went back and reconstructed the deal between Trump and El Salvador. Here are takeaways from their investigation, as well as an hour-by-hour timeline of the deportations. In other politics news: Tariff fears caused the G.D.P. to sink Data released today on U.S. gross domestic product suggested that the economy shrank in the first quarter by a 0.3 percent annual rate, following strong growth at the end of last year. The decline, however, was somewhat misleading. Underlying economic growth remained solid, and the G.D.P. drop was driven almost entirely by a huge increase in imports as consumers and businesses rushed to buy goods and materials before Trump's tariffs took effect. But tariffs and uncertainty have increased in the last month, prompting economists to warn that growth could continue to slow. In related news, stocks performed worse in Trump's first 100 days compared with how they did at the start of every presidential term since 1974. A deadly storm tore through Pennsylvania Hundreds of thousands of people in Pennsylvania were still without power this afternoon after a powerful storm plowed through the area yesterday. At least four people were killed, including a 22-year-old man who was electrocuted while trying to put out a mulch fire. More top news A steamy TV show about the father of French gastronomy Marie-Antoine Carême is widely thought to be one of the world's first celebrity chefs. During the early 19th century, he served kings, invented the croquembouche and coined the phrase 'You can try this yourself at home.' Now, Carême is the subject of an Apple TV+ series that premieres today. The show, like many period dramas, has a loose relationship to historical facts. But that frees it to be spry and fun, our critic writes. Meet Ballerina Cappuccina Her head is a cup. She is the wife of Cappuccino Assassino. And she's incredibly famous. For those of you who have never heard of Ballerina Cappuccina, don't worry. Neither had I. She is the star of the incredibly popular, and intentionally silly, internet trend called Italian brain rot. On TikTok, she and her other A.I.-generated friends — like Bombardiro Crocodilo — have generated over three billion views. Dinner table topics Cook: This French lentil salad is hearty, friendly and bright with flavor. Watch: Netflix's 'Havoc' has been a hit. If you liked it, here are five other films to stream. Read: Adam Kucharski's 'Proof' explains how certainty can be an illusion. Listen: Our music reporter recommended six genre-smashing songs. Plan: Here are 25 essential seafood dishes to eat in Tokyo. Move: Tight hips? This routine can help. Play: Here are today's Spelling Bee, Wordle and Mini Crossword. Find all our games here. Is that … a kangaroo? Drivers on Interstate 85 in Alabama were surprised yesterday to see a kangaroo bounding along the side of the road. Two were apparently so astonished that they got into a crash. Officials shut the highway down, and captured the kangaroo on video. Don't worry. The drivers are OK, and so is the kangaroo. Her name is Sheila, and she was a local man's pet who had escaped her enclosure. 'Wow,' the county sheriff marveled as he watched the owner carry the animal back to his vehicle. 'We see a little bit of everything here.' Have a hopping evening. Thanks for reading. I'll be back tomorrow. — Matthew Sean Kawasaki-Culligan was our photo editor. We welcome your feedback. Write to us at evening@
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Will the Supreme Court accept religious charter schools? It may all come down to John Roberts
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in one of the most closely watched cases of the current term, a battle over a first-of-its-kind religious charter school that's been proposed in Oklahoma. The case pits St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School and the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, which has approved it, against Oklahoma's Republican attorney general, who has criticized the school board's actions and objects to the school. Attorney General Gentner Drummond and other opponents of St. Isidore say using taxpayer money to fund a school built on religious values that plans to proclaim religious messages would violate Oklahoma state law and the U.S. Constitution. The school's supporters have also raised constitutional concerns, but they're calling for a very different Supreme Court ruling. They say banning religious charter schools amounts to religious discrimination. Drummond's opposition to St. Isidore puts him at odds with other top Republicans in Oklahoma. The case is fueling infighting among legal scholars, religious freedom advocates and education leaders nationwide. Although St. Isidore aims to become the nation's first religious charter school, its supporters' arguments aren't new. They're drawn from several recent Supreme Court cases on the First Amendment's free exercise clause. In three rulings over the past eight years, the justices said excluding religious schools from state-funded programs violated the free exercise clause, since the exclusion stemmed from the schools' religious identity. The pro-St. Isidore camp says the court should draw the same conclusion in this case and rule that Oklahoma cannot bar religious schools from participating in its charter school program simply because they're religious. St. Isidore's opponents, on the other hand, believe the court should treat the charter school program differently than it treated programs involving scholarships and vouchers, since charter schools are public schools in the eyes of the law. They say the ruling should not focus on the First Amendment's free exercise clause, but instead on its establishment clause, which aims to prevent government promotion of religion. The Oklahoma Supreme Court supported this latter argument and ruled in favor of Drummond in June. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case and agreed to consider whether free exercise or establishment clause concerns should win out. During oral arguments on Wednesday, the justices returned to two questions again and again: Should St. Isidore be seen as a public school? Do the three recent funding rulings actually apply to the charter school context? To answer the first question, the justices will have to determine whether charter schools are created and controlled by Oklahoma in the same way — or at least a significantly similar way — that public schools are created and controlled by Oklahoma. The attorneys who argued in favor of St. Isidore said it shouldn't be seen as a public school since it was established by private Catholic organizations and will be controlled by a private school board. The attorney arguing against St. Isidore said it should be seen as a public school since it came into existence as a result of the state's charter school program and since public education officials would have significant control over its curriculum. To answer the second question, the justices will need to decide whether the charter school program creates deeper establishment clause concerns than the scholarship and voucher programs at the center of past rulings. If it does, then a ban on sectarian charter schools will likely be seen as justified. If it doesn't, then Oklahoma will likely be found to have engaged in the same type of religious discrimination that led other states to lose the three recent funding cases. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court's three more liberal justices made it clear that they believe St. Isidore raises unique and significant establishment clause issues, as was expected heading into oral arguments. Meanwhile, several of the more conservative justices openly advocated for applying the past rulings. This 'seems like rank discrimination,' said Justice Brett Kavanaugh at one point. Since Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the proceedings, the three liberal justices only need one conservative justice to join them to force a 4-4 tie, which would leave the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision in place. Chief Justice John Roberts emerged as the best candidate to be a swing vote during Wednesday's arguments. At one point, he raised a concern about applying the past funding rulings to the charter school context. Those past cases 'involved fairly discrete state involvement. ... This does strike me as much more comprehensive involvement,' he said. But Roberts also raised concerns about what a ruling against St. Isidore could mean for other religious institutions. For example, he wondered if a decision presenting a religious charter school as a state actor would cause issues for faith-based foster care agencies that work closely with state governments. Roberts was far from the only justice worried about what the future will hold. His more liberal colleagues implied that a ruling for St. Isidore would lead to chaos nationwide, as religious charter schools fight to get established in other states and then push back against curriculum rules. More conservative justices questioned whether, after such a ruling, blue states would seek to shut down charter school programs or change the law so that there would be no doubt they're state-run. The attorney fighting against St. Isidore emphasized the potential for future confusion, noting that a ruling in favor of the religious charter school would force changes to federal law, as well as education policies in at least 45 other states. Meanwhile, the attorneys arguing in favor of St. Isidore aimed to downplay the significance of a ruling in their favor, noting that states aren't at risk of losing the power to set curricular guidelines and that families across the country will never be forced into receiving a religious education. The Supreme Court's ruling on religious charter schools is expected by early July.
New York Post
30-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Supreme Court may approve first-ever taxpayer-funded Catholic charter school
The Supreme Court appeared set Wednesday to allow Oklahoma to fund a religious charter school, potentially transforming K-12 education across the country. The eight justices splintered along ideological lines during oral arguments in the blockbuster case over whether the Sooner State's charter school board can approve the application of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. With Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing from the case, the decision could come down to Chief Justice John Roberts, who was largely quiet during arguments but sounded sympathetic to St. Isidore's application. 'All the religious school is saying is don't exclude us on account of our religion,' conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued. 'Our cases have made very clear — 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.' 'When you have a program that's open to all comers except religion,' he went on, 'that seems like rank discrimination against religion.' 5 Chief Justice John Roberts was largely quiet during oral arguments, but asked tough questions to a lawyer for Oklahoma's attorney general. REUTERS 5 Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from arguments in the consolidated case on Wednesday. POOL/AFP via Getty Images In June 2023, the five-member Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved St. Isidore's operation application in a 3–2 vote. A feud quickly emerged, pitting Republicans in the state against one another. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the Board in response, arguing the approval was illegal and fretting that the move would 'open the floodgates and force taxpayers to fund all manner of religious indoctrination, including radical Islam or even the Church of Satan.' Both the Trump administration and Oklahoma GOP Gov. Kevin Stitt have sided with the charter school board and St. Isidore's, which filed a separate lawsuit against Drummond that was consolidated into Wednesday's hearing. (The aspiring virtual charter school is named after the Roman Catholic patron saint of students.) 5 St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School is attempting to become the first overtly religious charter school. During oral arguments, Roberts asked only a few questions, but his most pointed one was aimed at Drummond's side. 'What do you do with Fulton [v. City of Philadelphia] — the state agency that refused to deal with the religious adoption services. We held they couldn't engage in that discrimination,' the chief justice asked. 'How is that different from what we have here?' Gregory Garre, arguing for Drummond, responded that charter schools are 'controlled in fundamental ways' by the state that other institutions are not Justices Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh raised similar points likening the arguments to a 2021 decision in which the court unanimously ruled that Philadelphia officials violated the First Amendment by suspending its contract with a Catholic social services agency that declined to certify same-sex couples as foster parents. 'You've urged us to say public schools are different from other contractors, like Catholic Charities in Fulton. And so we need a test, a legal test,' Gorsuch protested at one point. 5 The case could have major implications for charter schools across the country. Josh Morgan-USA TODAY Michael McGinley, an attorney for St. Isidore's, contended that the aspiring charter school was actually created by the private sector and is not exercising an 'exclusive government function.' 'It was created by private actors, and it is controlled by a private board and consists of entirely private actors. It thus lacks the essential elements of a government entity,' he argued. 'Constitutional analysis turns on substance, not labels.' That didn't sit well with the three liberal justices on the high court, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noting that the state of Oklahoma approves the curriculum for its charter schools and Justice Elena Kagan calling them 'state-run institutions.' 'They give the charter schools a good deal of curricular flexibility,' she insisted. 'With respect to a whole variety of things, the state is running these schools and insisting upon certain requirements.' Jackson also hit back at the notion that St. Isidore's would be facing religious discrimination if it gets denied charter school status. 'As I see it, it's not being denied a benefit that everyone else gets. It's being denied a benefit that no one else gets, which is the ability to establish a religious public school,' she argued. Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised concerns that in order for students to attend the school, they'd 'have to accept the teachings of the church with respect to certain principles.' 'St. Isidore allows exceptions for anyone that doesn't want to attend mass,' McGinley countered. 'In addition, it does not require students to affirm its religious beliefs.' 5 Protesters on both sides of the charter school fight gathered outside the Supreme Court ahead of oral arguments. Josh Morgan-USA TODAY Barrett did not explain why she recused herself. However, she had taught at the University of Notre Dame's law school for about 15 years, and the school's religious liberty clinic has been representing St. Isidore's. In the event of a 4–4 decision, the lower court ruling would stand, which in this case is the Oklahoma Supreme Court's 6–2 ruling that state law and the US Constitution prohibit taxpayer funding for religious schools. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in the consolidated case of OK Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Sch. v. Drummond by the end of June. The consolidated case is among the most high-profile forthcoming decisions on the Supreme Court's docket this term.
New York Times
30-04-2025
- General
- New York Times
St. Isidore, an Online Catholic Charter School, Would Be the First of Its Kind
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, the school at the center of Wednesday's case, has not yet opened its doors. In fact, it does not have doors to open. If the Supreme Court allows it to proceed, St. Isidore will be an online school, an alternative to traditional schooling that has been growing in popularity for years and proliferated during the pandemic. Named for the patron saint of the internet, St. Isidore aims to become the nation's first charter school with an explicitly religious curriculum. It would serve students in kindergarten through high school across the state of Oklahoma, seeking to bring Catholic education particularly to rural areas where many families do not have access to Catholic schools. As an arm of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa, the school would have 'a strong Catholic identity,' according to the school's website. In religion class, students would learn about Catholic saints, the Ten Commandments and other aspects of Catholic doctrine, according to the website. But other subjects may also incorporate elements of religion. For example, in science, students would learn about the contributions of Catholic scientists, like Copernicus and Galileo. Sample reading lists for high school English classes include classics like the 'Odyssey' and 'Don Quixote,' as well as Catholic readings such as 'The Place Within,' a poetry collection by Pope John Paul II. The school, which estimates an initial capacity of 500 students, would also hold two in-person Masses each year, in Oklahoma City and Tulsa. It would be open to students of all religious faiths. But as a private employer, it would be free to discriminate in hiring by, for example, showing preference to Catholic applicants or rejecting L.G.B.T.Q. candidates, an issue that may come up in the court's arguments on Wednesday.
