This past Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a bid by Oklahoma City officials to approve the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school, a move that may signal further weakening of the barrier between Church and State. The case revolves around a dispute between the proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would serve Oklahoma City youth while being officially of the Catholic denomination, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which ruled that the proposed school violates both the State and Federal constitutions. The Court announced that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose opinion would otherwise be integral to the ruling due to her religious background and education, would not participate. Although they didn’t announce why, speculation is that this is because her Alma Mater, Notre Dame Law School, is representing the school in the case.
First proposed in 2023, the plans for the school were drafted by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa, and endorsed by the governor, but opposed by the state attorney general, citing claims of religious non-neutrality. As of June 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board has approved the school’s application, despite widespread concerns over the aforementioned case. Following the school’s approval in June of 2023, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, took immediate action, asking that the Oklahoma Supreme Court intervene and rule the school’s creation unconstitutional. He explicitly cited in court filings that the state constitution mandates that schools in Oklahoma be “free from sectarian control”, and that no public funding should ever be used to support the creation or operation of such schools. The counterargument, which comes from the school and the state board, is that Oklahoma is inhibiting the free exercise of religion under a separate provision of the First Amendment. Because the court’s current composition is 6-3 with a conservative majority, many concerned residents and officials alike are voicing their dissent, stating that using public funds to fund a religious school violates the constitutional neutrality toward religion established in the First Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson notoriously referred to as a “wall of separation between church and state.
The board is being defended by Alliance Defending Freedom, a notoriously conservative Christian legal group. Some of the arguments to be considered surrounding the case include whether or not the school is to be considered a proxy of the state because it is receiving funding. That is to say, because the school is being funded by the state, and because its operations rely upon public funding, is it effectively a “state actor”, or an arm of the government? This past June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Drummond’s argument, citing that, “Under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school… As such, a charter school must be nonsectarian… However, St. Isidore will evangelize the Catholic school curriculum while sponsored by the state.” it also found that by receiving public funding, the school would be “acting as be acting as a surrogate of a state”, meaning that it would be considered a state actor. In recent related cases, the court has enabled the funneling of taxpayer money into religious entities, including schools under certain circumstances, further convoluting the case against this particular institution. Comments by Conservative justices on the court have also signaled that government officials have sometimes gone too far in avoiding the establishment of religion, going so far as to be effectively impeding the free practice of religion and thus free exercise of rights at times. In another related case, the court ruled in favor of a public high school football coach, who was suspended from his position for leading students in Christian prayer on the field.
It is my personal opinion that the Supreme Court should oppose the creation of the Christian school, whose operations depend upon public funds. Because the school is reliant upon taxpayer money to operate, it is considered a public school, and has appropriately been deemed a “state actor”. Because of this, in order to uphold religious neutrality, the Supreme Court should cite that state actors, such as public schools, should remain secular, and have no religious ties or affiliations so as to avoid violation of the First Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The opposing argument makes the claim that because the school is not being allowed to participate in a state program, it is preventing the free exercise of religion, but this is false as the school’s creation is only being denied on the basis that it relies upon public taxpayer funding. Should the school seek creation on its own private and personal financial merits, the state would have no right to oppose its existence, though because it is explicitly using taxpayer money to endorse the education of a specific religion, this qualifies as a governmental establishment of religion and should be thus ruled against.
6 comments:
I agree with your argument that allowing public funds to support a religious school would violate the First Amendment. It violates the governments neutrality of religion and the establishment of a specific religion. As you pointed out, the separation between church and state is crucial to preserving religious freedom for all, regardless of belief. By using taxpayer money to fund a religious institution, it not only blurs the line between public education and religious establishment, but combines the two. The government should remain neutral on matters of religion. Private religious schools already exist through private funding, because it is not fair to allocate tax payers money to religious organizations they do not support or attend.
I completely agree that the creation of a public religious school should not be allowed because it is not neutral. By having Catholic public schools and not other religious schools, this would not be neutral between religions. Furthermore, I agree that using taxpayer funds for this institution shows that there is cooperation between the church and state, rather than an intended separation. If parents want their children to receive religious education, this can still be done without making tax payers money promote religion. Private and Catholic schools exist for this reason, so I do not think free exercise is being impacted her. However, establishment is a major issue here, and I think the creation of a religious public school would violate the Establishment Clause. This could then lead to other instances to religious aid/support, so it is important to set a precadant that guards against establishment.
I agree with you that the creation of religious based public schools would violate the first amendment as it goes against the idea of neutrality. While one could argue that certain taxpayers may be religious and should have a say to what their money goes toward, this would only go toward certain religions, taking away the neutral aspect. There are far too many widely practiced religions for this to fund a school for each, essentially making it impossible to be neutral towards all of them. Additionally, there is the option for religious parents to opt their children out of public school and send them to religious school, therefore it is not an issue that these schools are not publicly funded. Ultimately, this would weaken the separation of church and state, and be an unconstitutional practice.
I also agree with you that supporting a religious school with public money is a clear violation of the First Amendment. To maintain impartiality and avoid the establishment of a specific religion, public schools should continue to be secular. As you pointed out, taxpayer funds shouldn't be given to places of worship that only practice one religion. Since there are already private religious schools operating without government support, the government shouldn't step in to favor one religion over another.
This is clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause and if allowed, weakens the barrier between church and state. As we discussed in cases before, no taxpayer funds should be directed towards funding religious institutions. I remember a case that seems a lot less threatening, where a church was asking for taxpayer money to provide renovations because it was recognized by the state as a historic site and even that was denied because of the fear of merging church and state. This case also differs from Everson v. Board of Education because in Everson, the taxpayer money was indirectly going to Catholic students' parents, not the school itself. The money also had a public purpose in ensuring the safety of children. I see no valid case for public funding here and therefore it's a clear violation of The Establishment Clause.
The creation of a Catholic public school undoubtedly violates the establishment clause and if the Supreme Court were to allow this, the wall between church and state will quickly diminish. Taxpayer money should not be appropriated towards religious causes. If this were to pass through the Supreme Court, what other arguments could religious groups make in order to get a share of taxpayer money? Especially considering christian nationalists who are increasingly gaining influence.
Post a Comment