lawrota.com

The United States Supreme Court is poised to tackle one of the most consequential education law cases in recent history—a challenge that sits at the complex intersection of religious liberty, public education, and constitutional interpretation. At the heart of the dispute is St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which, if allowed to operate under its current model, would become the first religious charter school funded by public dollars in the nation.

The case originated in Oklahoma, where the archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the diocese of Tulsa applied to the state charter school board for approval to launch a virtual Catholic charter school. Their vision was bold: a school that fully integrates Catholic doctrine into every aspect of education and openly participates in the evangelizing mission of the church. The board approved the application, signaling an unprecedented shift toward religious education within the publicly funded charter school system.

Named after the patron saint of the internet, St. Isidore of Seville was set to open its virtual doors to 500 students—half of whom would come from low-income families. The school was granted freedom to operate according to Catholic teachings, including admissions, curriculum, and religious observances.

But the greenlight didn’t last long. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, filed a petition with the Oklahoma Supreme Court, arguing that a religious charter school violates both state law and the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed and struck down the contract, asserting that St. Isidore, as a publicly funded entity, must remain nonsectarian. The court declared that allowing a religious charter school would amount to the state establishing and funding a religious institution—a direct constitutional violation.

In a twist, the charter school board (the very agency that approved the school) joined with St. Isidore to challenge the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court. They argue that denying religious groups access to public charter school funding constitutes religious discrimination in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. They maintain that charter schools are not government entities, but private educational options merely funded by public money—similar to religious foster care agencies or nonprofit hospitals.

The board cites Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982), in which the Supreme Court ruled that a privately operated school under a public contract did not constitute state action. Thus, they argue, St. Isidore should not be held to the same constitutional constraints as traditional public schools.

Importantly, the case lands before a Court that has, in recent years, shown strong support for religious freedoms in education. In Trinity Lutheran (2017), Espinoza v. Montana (2020), and Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court sided with religious institutions, stating that if a state offers a public benefit—such as funding or tax credits—it cannot exclude recipients simply because they are religious.

Supporters of St. Isidore argue that denying religious charter schools violates the same principle. They contend that the funds reach the school through parental choice, not direct government establishment, thus bypassing any constitutional problem.

But AG Drummond pushes back. He distinguishes St. Isidore from private religious schools that receive voucher funds. Charter schools, he argues, are inherently public: they are created by the state, regulated by state agencies, and funded through public dollars. Allowing a religious charter school, he warns, opens the door to states being constitutionally obligated to fund faith-based curricula under the guise of parental choice. This, he insists, is not what the Establishment Clause allows.

The implications are far-reaching. If the Court sides with St. Isidore, it could reshape the charter school landscape nationwide, effectively permitting religious doctrine within publicly funded classrooms. Such a ruling might challenge the federal Charter School Program, which mandates that charter schools remain secular.

Drummond also warns of a slippery slope: If religious charter schools are allowed, states will be forced either to impose public-school regulations—such as anti-discrimination laws—on religious institutions or to create exemptions, effectively giving these schools “special status.” Either route raises its own constitutional red flags.

Further complicating matters is Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recusal. Though no formal reason was given, Barrett’s longstanding ties to Notre Dame—where St. Isidore’s legal team is based—and her personal relationship with leading advocates for religious education raise concerns about impartiality. Without Barrett, a 4-4 deadlock would leave the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision intact.

This case is a test of the constitutional boundaries between church and state, public funding and religious instruction, state control and parental choice. As arguments begin, legal observers, educators, policymakers, and religious groups across the country are watching closely.

Will the Supreme Court preserve the traditional line separating church and state—or redraw it to accommodate modern interpretations of religious liberty?

#SupremeCourt #ReligiousLiberty #CharterSchools #ChurchAndState #EducationLaw #StIsidore #SCOTUSwatch #FirstAmendment #FreeExercise #EstablishmentClause

Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-to-consider-bid-for-first-religious-charter-school/