(ZENIT News / Washington, 05.02.2025).- The Supreme Court on Wednesday weighed the constitutional limits of religious expression in public education, hearing arguments in a case that could clear the way for the first publicly funded religious charter school in American history.
The case centers on St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a proposed online institution backed by Oklahoma’s Catholic leadership and approved by the state’s Charter School Board last year. The school is designed to deliver a curriculum explicitly rooted in Catholic doctrine, with its mission unapologetically aligned with evangelization. The legal question now before the nation’s highest court is whether the First Amendment allows such a school to receive public funds through the charter system.
The court appeared sharply divided during more than two hours of oral argument, with conservative justices leaning toward permitting the school, citing religious freedom protections, while liberal justices expressed alarm over the potential erosion of the Establishment Clause.
Chief Justice John Roberts—frequently a swing vote in complex religious liberty cases—emerged as a pivotal figure in the proceedings. With Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself due to past affiliations with Notre Dame Law School, whose legal clinic represents St. Isidore, a 4-4 tie remains possible. If that happens, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision blocking the school would stand, though without setting a national precedent.
At the core of the debate is the constitutional tug-of-war between the Establishment Clause, which bars government endorsement of religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which forbids discrimination against religious practice. In recent years, the Court’s conservative majority has increasingly favored expansive interpretations of the latter, allowing religious organizations greater access to public programs once considered secular-only.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointedly noted that religious institutions “can’t be treated as second-class citizens,” warning that excluding faith-based schools from public charter programs could amount to unconstitutional bias. Justice Samuel Alito took a sharper tone, accusing Oklahoma’s Attorney General Gentner Drummond—who opposes the school—of displaying selective skepticism that he implied bordered on religious hostility. Alito referenced Drummond’s remarks that a ruling in favor of the Catholic school could open the floodgates to Islamic or other religious charter schools as an indication of unfair prejudice.
But liberal justices challenged the underlying assumption that charter schools function like private institutions merely accepting public funds. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was blunt: “You’re saying the Free Exercise Clause trumps the Establishment Clause. That’s not what the Constitution says.” She also questioned whether a religious charter school would be free to teach creationism in place of evolution, or exclude non-Catholic students.
Justice Elena Kagan echoed the concern, asking whether allowing religious schools into the charter system could lead to fragmentation along theological lines. “Religious communities differ widely,” she said, “and their educational goals may not align with democratic values or public standards.” She also raised the specter of inequity if only “mainstream” faiths—those with institutional resources—could navigate charter approval, potentially sidelining minority.
Though many of the conservative justices downplayed the potential for nationwide fallout, the stakes are undeniably national. Charter laws in all 47 states currently exclude religious entities from operating state-funded charter schools. A ruling for St. Isidore could upend that consensus, either inviting a wave of litigation or compelling legislative changes to either accommodate or restrict religious participation.
Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that states concerned about preserving secular education could tighten government oversight of charters to justify religious exclusions—a move that might avoid future legal entanglements. However, critics warn that this could come at the cost of innovation and autonomy, long touted as hallmarks of the charter movement.
The implications extend beyond the legal world. National charter school advocates, including the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, filed briefs warning of unintended consequences. They caution that redefining charter schools as private actors receiving public money could jeopardize their funding under state and federal laws, many of which prohibit the use of public funds for private education, religious or not.
In Oklahoma, the backlash has already sparked political fissures. Drummond, a Republican, broke with his own party to oppose the school’s approval, arguing it violates both the state constitution and the federal First Amendment. In his filings, he emphasized that public schools—charter or otherwise—must remain secular to protect all citizens’ rights and avoid establishing state-sponsored religion.
The debate is not merely theoretical. St. Isidore was set to launch as a fully online school open to students across Oklahoma, promoting Catholic theology as an integral part of its pedagogy. Its supporters argue this offers parents greater choice and aligns with broader school choice initiatives. But opponents, including public school advocates and civil liberties groups, say it represents a dangerous precedent that could unravel the wall separating church and state.
With a final ruling expected later this year, the Court’s decision could shape the future of religious education, public funding, and the very interpretation of constitutional freedom. Whether St. Isidore becomes a trailblazer or a cautionary tale remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the bell that rings for this school may echo far beyond Oklahoma.
Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.
