WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 30: Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush (L), President and CEO of Interfaith Alliance, speaks as Rev. Shannon Fleck, Executive Director of Faithful America, listens during a news conference outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)Photo: Alex Wong / Getty Images News / Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Wednesday that it may be open to allowing Oklahoma to use public funds for the country’s first religious charter school—one that would feature Catholic teachings in its curriculum.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that excluding the school from the state’s charter system would be clear discrimination against religion. As expected, the justices appeared divided along ideological lines: Republican-appointed justices seemed more favorable toward the school, while Democratic-appointed justices expressed concern.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, reportedly due to personal ties with one of the lawyers in the case. With only eight justices hearing the arguments, a 4-4 split is possible. If that happens, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision blocking the school would remain in place, but no national precedent would be set.
The school in question, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, plans to integrate Catholic beliefs throughout its educational programming. It’s being represented by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.
The legal fight began when Oklahoma’s charter school board approved the proposal for St. Isidore. State Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, filed suit to stop the school from opening, arguing that using taxpayer money to fund a religious public school violates both the U.S. Constitution and Oklahoma’s own constitution.
A final ruling is expected by late June or early July. The justices will privately vote in the coming days, and the most senior justice in the majority will assign the opinion-writing task. In major cases like this, the court often takes its time, sometimes releasing decisions at the very end of the term.
Some scholars say that big rulings are delayed because the justices want to carefully craft opinions that may shape their legacy. Others note that handing down controversial rulings late in the term helps avoid uncomfortable social tensions in Washington before the justices leave town for summer.
If the justices do split evenly, the outcome would be anticlimactic: the Supreme Court would issue a brief, unsigned statement affirming the lower court’s ruling, leaving the constitutional question unresolved.
SOURCE: The New York Times