On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court exhibited a notable divide over a Catholic virtual charter school’s application to become the nation’s first religious charter school. Notably, Justice Amy Coney Barrett was recused from the case, leaving the potential outcome largely contingent on Chief Justice John Roberts, whose inquiries during the hearing did not signal a definitive stance.
The case originated when Oklahoma’s charter school board approved a proposal by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to establish St. Isidore of Seville, a virtual Catholic charter school. Despite a state statute mandating that charter schools remain non-religious in their operations, the board’s agreement permitted the school to exercise its religious convictions openly. The state’s Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, challenged this contract at the Oklahoma Supreme Court, resulting in a ruling that charter schools must remain secular under state law.
In defense of the charter board, James Campbell argued the importance of private organizations in providing varied educational choices, referencing recent Supreme Court cases such as Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, Carson v. Makin, and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which suggest that excluding religious entities from public benefits infringes upon constitutional rights. However, Chief Justice Roberts expressed skepticism, noting that the involvement in these cases was more limited compared to the comprehensive state engagement in the current scenario.
Justice Elana Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson further scrutinized the applicability of these cases. Justice Kagan highlighted the structural similarities between charter and public schools, while Justice Jackson argued that St. Isidore isn’t being denied a universally available benefit, but is rather seeking a privilege that aligns with no existing public policy.
The discussion also scrutinized whether St. Isidore functions as a government entity or as a private actor with religious liberties. Gregory Garre, representing the Attorney General, emphasized charter schools’ governmental characteristics, citing federal requirements for public supervision that bio imply state oversight.
Conversely, Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed open to viewing St. Isidore as a private entity, suggesting that states could increase oversight to reinforce the public aspect of charter schools.
Other justices, such as Samuel Alito, raised concerns about the potential exclusion of minority religions from such opportunities, drawing parallels to past Supreme Court cases dealing with religious bias such as Masterpiece Cakeshop. Hypotheticals floated included diverse religious educational programs, which might become feasible across different states under a favorable ruling for St. Isidore.
Garre predicted that a win for the charter school could disrupt the legal landscape governing charter schools, rendering both federal and state statutes unconstitutional due to their non-sectarian requirements. This could potentially challenge existing frameworks under laws like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Some justices see this as an opportunity to ensure inclusion without prejudice. Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted the stakes for religious schools seeking equitable treatment without preferential concessions.
As the court prepares to decide, it’s clear that the outcome will not only affect St. Isidore’s fate but could also reshape the interpretation of charter school regulations and religious freedom in educational settings. For a more in-depth analysis, the full details are available on SCOTUSblog.