The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case that could potentially allow taxpayer-funded religious schools, particularly the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in Oklahoma, to qualify for public charter school status.
The big picture; Oklahoma Charter School Board’s attorney argued that St. Isidore was established by private Catholic organizations, built its own charter program, and received its own start-up funding, making a strong case for public funding eligibility.
- The school’s lawyers emphasized the issue of discrimination, claiming that religious liberty is at stake if the school is denied charter status and is not allowed to participate in the program.
Go deeper: Conservative justices seemed inclined to support the school’s argument, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighting the potential discrimination against religion in denying access to the charter system.
- The case was framed by some as a question of school choice, debating whether parents should have the right to choose their child’s school or if the government should mandate that decision.
- Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern over the school’s appearance not aligning with the typical public school model, raising questions about community discrimination and taxpayers funding religious education they may not support.
- Oklahoma’s Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond argued against the charter school designation, citing violations of both state and U.S. constitutions by potentially funding religious indoctrination under a public charter.
- Supporters referenced the First Amendment’s establishment clause to emphasize the importance of separating church and state in avoiding government endorsement of any religious institution.
What we’re watching: The court’s decision, expected before the summer term’s end, could lead to a significant increase in taxpayer-funded religious schools as 45 states and Washington, D.C., already have charter school systems.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case, leaving room for a potential tie in the court’s decision-making process.
