The majority of the conservative of the US Supreme Court on Wednesday seems ready to remove the way for the creation of the first religious charter school that is funded directly with a taxpayer dollar.
The judges heard the argument in an important dispute from Oklahoma, where the Supreme Court of the State last year blocked the Catholic Church from receiving a charter school contract on the grounds that he violated the constitutional prohibition of state and federal in sectarian education sponsored by the government.
Decisions that put aside the State High Courts will have a ripple effect throughout the country, especially in 45 states which are home to 8,000 charter schools that serve more than 3.8 million children.
The Attorney General of the State Republic is of the opinion that the Charter School is a public school – open to all and is subject to strict supervision – and, thus, operates as an extension of the state government which is subject to the principles of the separation of the Church and the State.
The Supreme Court was seen in Washington, March 2, 2025.
Tiey l cross/afp via getty images
School Lawyer Prospective School Candidates – St. Isidore from Seville Catholic Virtual School – insisting that it is made personally and controlled and not included from the charter school funding which is generally available is religious discrimination.
For more than two hours, the judges debated the application of the first amendment religious clause that competed for this case, considering the prohibition on the establishment of a religious state and its protection for the implementation of free religious faith.
Three liberal members of the court unite in the view that the charter school is a public institution that cannot advance certain ideologies using taxpayers.
“The essence of the establishment clause is, we will not pay religious leaders to teach their religion,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor said.
Judge Elena Kagan noted that the Oklahoma Law who created the Charter School Program explicitly said they must not be religious.
“This is an institution managed by the government,” Kagan said. “In connection with various things, the country runs these schools and insist on certain requirements.”
Conservatives suggest they have a different view of the charter school – as a contractor for public services rather than government arm.
“The argument made by St. Isidore and the council is that it is a private entity that participates in the state program,” said Judge Clarence Thomas. “That is not made by the state program.”
Judge Brett Kavanugh expressed concern that the verdict against St. Isidore on the grounds that the first amendment can question other government contracts with organizations affiliated with religion.
“I think the concern here is that senior homes or food banks that are operated religiously or foster institutions or adoption institutions or homeless shelters, many of which get substantial funds from the government, will potentially … become state actors and, thus, cannot train their religion,” Kavanugh said.
A series of Supreme Court decisions recently supported the idea that the public benefits program funded by taxpayers, from school vouchers to scholarships managed by state, must be available evenly, even if a person or organization has religious affiliation.
Many judges said the precedent applies to the Oklahoma case.
Kavanugh emphasized that the religious charter school will give a “choice” to the family “but does not limit students to religious education.
“A student in Oklahoma is free to choose a public school, right? No students are required to attend charter schools, right?” he said.
“Right,” answered Gregory Garre, a lawyer representing the country.
Judge Neil Gorsuch suggested that individual countries opposing charter schools affiliated with religion can adjust their laws to prevent it -and have the potential to limit the independence of the charter.
“I can imagine that some states might respond to decisions that benefit you by forcing more requirements in charter schools,” Gorsuch told James Campbell’s lawyer representing the Plaintiff.
Chief Judge John Roberts asked critical questions from both parties. At one point, Roberts argues that the St. Charter School Isidore will lead to a striking “comprehensive involvement” between the church and the state. Then, he equated the relationship with a Catholic charity contract with the city of Philadelphia to provide adoption services; The Decision of the High Court in 2021 said the city could not exclude religious agents from the parenting program.
“What’s the difference with what do we have here?” Roberts asked Lawyer Oklahoma Gregory Garre. “You have an educational program, and you want to not allow them to participate with religious entities.”
Judge Amy Coney Barrett resigned from last year’s case but did not explain his decision. Veterans court observers have recorded a close relationship with Notre Dame University and personal relations with the professor of law there involved in this case.
His absence created the possibility of a 4-4 court which was jammed, in this case the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma will stand. Roberts is widely seen as a decisive voice.
“Today’s oral argument is clarifying that the state may not treat individuals and institutions who are religious as second -class citizens,” said Carrie Severino, former Clarence Thomas justice officer and JCN President, a conservative legal advocacy group. “I hope the court will follow the precedent and allow St. Isidore to offer educational options for Oklahoma students.”
Opponents of the religious charter school say they are afraid that big decisions will be in the horizon and can be transformative.
“If today’s argument is an indication, the Supreme Court may be on the verge of leaving one of the basic principles of our democracy,” Pastor Dr. Shannon Fleck, Executive Director of Faithful America, a Christian advocacy group who leaning to the left. “Let’s clarify, this is always a test case, and today, constitutional protection that has been maintaining true religious freedom for several risk.”