As protesters gathered outside, the Supreme Court heard a verbal debate on April 30, 2025 about whether Oklahoma could run the country's first faith-based charter school. St. Isidor in Seville will be a virtual K-12 school run by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese and the Diocese of Tulsa in Oklahoma City.

The charter is usually the preferred public school, funded by taxpayer funds. Unlike the average public school, they are not subject to most state regulations regarding curriculum and teacher qualifications. But, as with other public schools, the charter has been secular.

The lawsuit by St. Isidore reveals the inherent tension in the First Amendment religious clauses, “Parliament shall not enact laws that respect the establishment of religion, nor shall it prohibit its free exercise.” While the practice of freedom guarantees the right of people to believe in as they wish, the dispute remains the right to constitute the “establishment” of religion.

Here, the specific question is to what extent can states spend public funds to allow parents to register their children in faith-based charter schools. Supporters appealed the Oklahoma Supreme Court's 2024 ruling that ruled that religious charter schools violated state laws, as well as the Oklahoma and federal constitutions.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican supporter of St. Isidore, said the case “is one of the most important religious and educational free decisions in our lives.”

On the other hand, the attorney for the St. Isidor challenger led by Oklahoma Attorney General Genter Drummond prevented the school from opening, saying that the victory of St. Isidor would lead to a surprising domination, indicating that the state can not only fund and establish public religious schools, it is a shocking public religious school, contrary to the expectations of the scheduled period in that court period. ”

As Stitt claims, it remains to be seen whether a ruling that supports St. Isidor will prove to be a victory or a threat to religious freedom. Even so, as a professor focused on educational law, I think that the order to continue to expand taxpayer aid in faith-based institutions looks more likely in Wednesday’s argument, and five of the eight participating judges seemed to express sympathy for St. Isidor.

question

The Supreme Court faces two key issues.

First, “Is the teaching of a privately owned and operated school simply because it contracts with the state to offer free educational options for interested students?” In other words, is the charter school a state actor?

Second, the Justice will weigh the way the First Amendment religious clauses apply to faith-based charter schools. Under the First Amendment, “Congress shall not create laws that respect the establishment of religion or prohibit its free exercise.” The question is whether Oklahoma violated the free practice clause by excluding schools from the Charter Plan “just because schools are religious.” If so, is there any reason for concerns about the government's "establishment" religion?

The dispute in St. Isidor took place at a time when the Supreme Court has been steadily expanding restrictions on aid for faith-based schools. Starting in 2016, three cases ruled that states cannot deny institutions and believers who are usually funded by taxpayers based on their religious beliefs. The cases cover the rights to attend Montana’s education tax credit program in Missouri, and provide tuition assistance to Maine parents in areas lacking public middle schools to increase assistance.

Another question - the “National Actors” question - basically asking whether state-funded schools teach Catholicism would constitute a government that promotes religion, violating the First Amendment prohibition.

Oklahoma Attorney General Drummond is also a Republican. However, he reversed his predecessor’s actions, allowing St. Isidor’s creation, and argued that the school “abuses the notion of religious freedom, as a means of justifying the religion funded by the state.”

Drummond noted in his 2024 Supreme Court brief that Oklahoma "chart schools all have all the logos of public schools," such as fully funded by the state. During the April debate, his lawyer stressed that the charter “must be public schools by the U.S. Congress and the legislatures of 47 states.”

If this argument prevails, it means that St. Isidor is a government actor and therefore cannot push either religion to another.

Supporters of St. Isidor may have difficulty overcoming national action claims. But the trump card in the loophole is the recent trend of the Supreme Court to expand the boundaries of government aid for faith-based schools and their students.

In fact, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote most of the opinions in all three cases. "The public interest is excluded from the public interest, otherwise it is qualified, all because it is a church, is abominable to our Constitution and cannot bear it."

Judge Amy Barrett, a supporter of faith-based school aid, withdrew to participate in the oral debate without explanation. This left five judges supporting the expansion of public aid for faith-based schools: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsucci, Brett Kavanaugh and Roberts.

Oral argument

During the inquiry, Roberts commented that St. Isidor's creation seemed to be "more comprehensive (state) engagement with religious organizations" than previous expansion of taxpayer aid, which made people open to the way he might vote. Nevertheless, he and four other supporters of the aid appear to be open to St. Isidor’s argument that excluding faith-based schools from the Charter Plan is unconstitutional discrimination based on religion.

Kavanaugh commented: “All religious schools say don’t exclude us because of our religion.” He added: “You cannot consider religious people and religious institutions and religious speeches as second-class in the United States.”

The remaining Justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson seem to be skeptical about expanding state aid to faith-based schools.

Sotomayor explained the tension in the First Amendment and told the lawyer representing St. Isidor: "What you are talking about is the nature of the free practice clause trumping institutional clauses."

Jackson told the same attorney that St. Isidor "has not been gained by everyone else. It's the benefit that no one else gets, it's the ability to build religious public schools."

If Roberts agrees to the consent of the three judges, resulting in a 4-4 draw, the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision will not be disturbed.

In the words of baseball sage Yogi Berra, "It's not over until it ends." The court is expected to rule after the end of its term, possibly in late June.

This article includes material from the article originally published on January 31, 2025.