In a landmark case, the Supreme Court is set to decide on the constitutionality of religious charter schools in the United States. The case, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond (Supreme Court docket numbers 24-394 and 24-396), has ignited a fierce debate about the separation of church and state, religious freedom, and the future of public education. This decision could fundamentally alter the landscape of American education, raising critical questions about the role of religion in publicly funded schools.
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School applied to become a charter school under Oklahoma's statewide program. The Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved the application, allowing St. Isidore to operate as a public charter school while maintaining its religious curriculum and practices. This decision was challenged by Oklahoma's Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, who argued that the contract violated both state and federal laws, including the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Drummond, a conservative Republican who has since announced his candidacy for governor, called the decision “contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interests of taxpayers.” He argued that Oklahomans would soon find themselves on a “slippery slope,” forced to fund charters that promoted religions to which they objected. This was something the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board didn't consider when approving St. Isidore's application. Essentially, the board overlooked the potential consequences of using taxpayer dollars to fund a religious school, which could lead to public money supporting religious activities that taxpayers might not agree with. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that St. Isidore is a charter school and, therefore, a public school, meaning public taxpayer dollars may not be used to fund it, per the Oklahoma state constitution.
Charter Schools and Public Funding
Charter schools are publicly funded schools that operate independently of the traditional public school system. They are free to attend, open to all students, and funded by taxpayer dollars. Because they are part of the public school system, they must adhere to certain regulations and standards set by the state and federal government.
Oklahoma State Constitution
The Oklahoma state constitution has specific provisions regarding the use of public funds for education. It mandates that public schools, including charter schools, must be nonsectarian, meaning they cannot promote or endorse any religion. This is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to fund religious activities, maintaining the separation of church and state.
The Ruling:
In the case of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the school's contract with the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board was unconstitutional. The court found that because St. Isidore is a charter school, it is considered a public school under Oklahoma law. As a public school, it must adhere to the nonsectarian requirement, meaning it cannot incorporate religious teachings into its curriculum and operations if it is to receive public funding.Why It Matters:
This ruling matters because it reinforces the principle that public funds should not be used to support religious activities. By defining charter schools as public schools, the court ensures that taxpayer dollars are used to support inclusive, secular education for all students, regardless of their religious beliefs. This helps maintain the separation of church and state, a fundamental aspect of American democracy.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court will address two key issues in this case:
State Action:
Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students.Free Exercise Clause:
Whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or whether the state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires.
Separation of Church and State
The principle of separation of church and state is a cornerstone of American democracy, ensuring that religious institutions and government entities remain distinct and independent from one another. This principle is enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing or endorsing any religion. The case of St. Isidore raises significant concerns about this separation, as it involves the use of taxpayer dollars to fund a religious school.
Historically, the Supreme Court has upheld the separation of church and state in various rulings, emphasizing that public funds should not be used to support religious activities. The Everson v. Board of Education case in 1947 was a pivotal moment, where the Court ruled that state reimbursement for transportation to religious schools did not violate the Establishment Clause, but it also reinforced the need for a "wall of separation" between church and state. Allowing religious charter schools to receive public funding could erode this wall, leading to increased government entanglement with religious institutions.
Why Is Separation of Church and State Good Law?:
The separation of church and state is a fundamental principle that has been at the core of many democratic societies around the world. Here are several reasons why this principle is considered good law:Preserves Religious Freedom:
One of the primary reasons for the separation of church and state is to safeguard religious freedom for all citizens. By ensuring government institutions do not promote or favor any particular religion, citizens are free to practice their faith or beliefs without fear of persecution or discrimination. This protects the rights of minorities and prevents the dominance of any one religious group, fostering an environment of tolerance and respect.Prevents Religious Coercion:
When church and state are entwined, there is a risk of religious coercion, where the government may impose religious beliefs or practices on its citizens. This undermines personal autonomy and can lead to the marginalization of those who hold different beliefs. By keeping religion separate from government, individuals can make their own choices about their faith, free from the influence of the state.Promotes Respect and Diversity:
Separation of church and state fosters a society that embraces pluralism and diversity. By preventing the establishment of a state religion, it allows for the coexistence of different faith traditions, beliefs, and practices. This creates an environment where individuals can engage in interfaith dialogue, learn from one another, and celebrate the richness of diverse religious expressions. A society that values and respects diverse religious perspectives is more likely to cultivate respect, understanding, and social harmony.Protects Religious Communities:
Separation of church and state also safeguards the autonomy and integrity of religious organizations and spiritual communities. It ensures that religious groups can operate independently of government control, preserving their ability to govern themselves according to their own beliefs and practices.
Historical Context and Legal Precedents
The principle of separation of church and state has deep historical roots in America. Thomas Jefferson famously shaped this metaphor in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, writing about a “wall of separation between church and state.” The Supreme Court has upheld this principle in various rulings, emphasizing that public funds should not be used to support religious activities. The Everson v. Board of Education case in 1947 confirmed that the Establishment Clause extends to state laws via the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequent cases, such as Lemon v. Kurtzman, introduced tests for vetting laws concerning religious establishment.
Implications:
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of charter schools and religious education in the United States. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of St. Isidore, it could pave the way for more religious institutions to seek charter status, potentially altering the landscape of public education. This could lead to a proliferation of religious charter schools, funded by taxpayer dollars, and blurring the lines between public and private education.
On the other hand, a ruling against St. Isidore could reinforce the separation of church and state, limiting the ability of religious schools to receive public funding. This would uphold the principles of secular public education and ensure that government resources are not used to support religious activities.
From Oklahoma Supreme Court to SCOTUS: How Did This Case Get to Their Desk If It's Unconstitutional?
After the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that St. Isidore's contract with the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board was unconstitutional, the parties involved had the option to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a common step when a case involves significant constitutional questions or federal law.
To get the case heard by the Supreme Court, the petitioners (St. Isidore and the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. This is a formal request asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of the lower court. The Supreme Court receives thousands of such petitions each year but only grants a small percentage. For a writ of certiorari to be granted, at least four of the nine Justices must agree to hear the case.
The Supreme Court typically agrees to hear cases that involve important constitutional questions, conflicting decisions from lower courts, or issues of broad national significance. In this instance, the case raises critical questions about the separation of church and state, the use of public funds for religious schools, and the interpretation of the First Amendment. Given these significant issues, the Supreme Court decided to review the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling.
Additional Legal Context
The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is part of a broader trend in its recent rulings concerning religious freedom and public funding. Over the past decade, the Court has issued several decisions that affirm states may not exclude religious organizations from programs available to private entities. Key cases include:
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017): The Court held that Missouri violated the Constitution by denying a faith-based preschool access to a state-funded playground resurfacing grant.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020): The Court ruled that Montana’s supreme court acted unconstitutionally in striking down a school-choice program simply because it included religious schools.
Carson v. Makin (2022): The Court found that Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from a tuition-assistance program violated the Constitution.
These decisions established two key principles: states may not exclude faith-based organizations from public programs, and they may not require those organizations to abandon their religious character as a condition of receiving public funds. The Court affirmed that states cannot discriminate against an institution simply because it intends to put public funds to “religious use”—that is, to offer faith-based programming.
Implications:
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of charter schools and religious education in the United States. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of St. Isidore, it could pave the way for more religious institutions to seek charter status, potentially altering the landscape of public education. This could lead to a proliferation of religious charter schools, funded by taxpayer dollars, and blurring the lines between public and private education.
On the other hand, a ruling against St. Isidore could reinforce the separation of church and state, limiting the ability of religious schools to receive public funding. This would uphold the principles of secular public education and ensure that government resources are not used to support religious activities.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on April 30, 2025, the nation watches closely. This case not only challenges existing legal precedents but also forces us to reconsider the balance between religious freedom and the principles of secular public education. Regardless of the outcome, the decision will undoubtedly shape the future of charter schools and religious education in America. Upholding the separation of church and state is crucial to maintaining the integrity of our democratic system and ensuring that public funds are used to support inclusive, secular education for all.