The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to have taken a transformative step on Wednesday, the first time that taxpayers allowed adequate funding of open religious schools.

Oklahoma, like the other 45 states, has charter schools that can provide greater flexibility and innovation in education. However, under federal charter schools and similar state laws, charter schools are state-funded public schools, strictly supervised by the state, and most importantly, for Wednesday’s cases, the school must be non-sectarian.

Challenging Wednesday’s non-religious demands are two Catholic dioceses in Oklahoma, trying to establish a publicly funded Catholic school, St. Isidor, Seville, as a charter school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that this would directly contradict the state-funded religious inculcation related to state-funded religious indoctrination.

But in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the questions raised by Conservative judges seem to be largely inclined to allow religious schools to become publicly funded charter schools.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh strongly TV his point of view, proclaiming for a moment: “What the religious school says is, ‘Don’t exclude us because of our religion.’ … It seems discrimination against religion when you have a plan open to all tuners except religion.”

Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas raised similar questions, and argued that keeping a religious school out is equivalent to discrimination against religious believers and their free exercise of religion’s constitutional rights.

Chief Justice John Roberts is hard to read, suggesting that including an open religious school in the Charter Plan “does make me a more comprehensive participation than the school choice program that the court previously ruled”. But at other times, Roberts seems to be very skeptical of the arguments raised by Oklahoma.

Ultimately, only three liberals in the court are openly skeptical that a Catholic school dedicated to teaching the Word of Christ could become part of the government’s program of public charter schools that is fully government-funded.

Speaking to a lawyer representing the Archbishop, Judge Elena Kagan noted that the Charter School system was formulated to improve curriculum flexibility so that the state can create more schools focused on arts, mathematics and science or language.

She said when they created the charter school system, “don’t want to start funding every religious school in the country. Now what you say to that state is ‘Yes, you have to go to fund Yeshiva. … Yes, you have to fund (Madrasas); yes, you have to raise funds.

If so, she added, there will be a “line” to include religious schools in the public charter school program.

Kagan also noted that St. Isidor negotiated with the state to become a charter school contract, a contract that, as she said, “you amended to incorporate various principles of church autonomy”. Michael McGinley, an attorney representing St. Ice Idol, acknowledged that the school puts certain provisions in the standard charter school contract.

Kagan followed up and asked, “If you want to make other rules…because the kind of religious education you think…is not consistent with the “mission of the church.” McGinley acknowledged it was “part of the signing process.”

Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson pointed out that federal law for the charter school program formulated in 1994 specifically said charter schools must be non-denominational. She asked, is federal law unconstitutional? McKinley essentially said yes.

On behalf of the Trump administration and religious groups, attorney John Sauer insists that allowing religious charter schools to coexist with non-religious schools is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution because “deciding whether to decide whether to go to a religious school… lying in the hands of parents.”

Gregory Garre, an attorney representing Oklahoma, replied that the state offers vouchers and tax benefits to parents who want to send their children to private religious schools. But he insisted that because public schools were first public schools in the mid-1800s, the state and federal constitutions did not allow private religious schools to be funded directly by the government.

He said changing long-standing constitutional norms could have far-reaching and different consequences in different states across the country. For example, some states may find that “our tradition does not allow religion to be taught in our public schools.”

He said that if in this case the court's ruling on the Catholic Church would be sowing uncertainty, chaos and destruction, which is for millions of children and families across the country. He said charter schools are public schools without exception, noting that in New Orleans, e.g. The only one Public schools are charter schools.

He asked, what teachers could teach whether to add religious schools to public charter schools? How will the national law on the rights of persons with disabilities apply to children? What would a curriculum be if an religious school prohibits evolutionary teaching? Can you have a gay teacher? He said the issues are unlimited and the school district can be tied up in litigation.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett withdrew from attending Wednesday’s case, presumably because she was a law professor, she participated in the clinic in St. Isidore at Notre Dame. Her recovery means the court can imagine, although the odds on Wednesday look far away.

At the end of the argument, the only question about existence is where Chief Justice Roberts will eventually appear. If he is with other conservatives, it is likely that there will be five appropriate majority seats for the charter school program including open religious schools. If he votes in other ways, the tie vote will automatically maintain the lower court's ruling, forbid religious schools from becoming public charter schools. Religious schools will have to look for another test case to be brought to court.

A decision is expected to be made before early summer.