In a potentially landmark case that could fundamentally alter the relationship between religion and public education in America, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the consolidated cases of Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond. St. Isidore. These cases call into question whether Oklahoma can open St. Isidore, an online Roman Catholic charter school. If affirmed, St. Isidore would become the first faith based charter school in the United States, blurring the line of the separation of church and state.
In October 2023, Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma’s attorney general, filed suit against the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board to stop the establishment of St. Isidore, arguing that as a fully state-funded institution, the school would effectively represent government-sponsored religion, which would be in violation of state law, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favor of the attorney general. The school and charter school board then appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the state court’s ruling takes away the school’s free exercise of religion by disqualifying them from government aid.
There are two constitutional questions at issue. The first is whether a state-funded school teaching Catholicism constitutes the government supporting an established religion. Drummond argues that because charter schools “bear all the same hallmarks of a public school” they may not promote any religion. While the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with this notion, the Supreme Court has recently decided some cases which expand the boundaries of aid to religious schools. One such case is Trinity Lutheran Church Of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The 2017 case ruled that a Missouri law violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The Trinity Lutheran Church had applied for a grant to resurface their preschool playground, and was denied by The Department of Natural Resources because the preschool was operated by a church. The church sued, claiming that the denial violated the Free Exercise Clause, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church, stating that the government cannot exclude churches from secular government programs based on their religious identity.
Another precedent that could apply to this case is Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing. In Everson, a taxpayer challenged a New Jersey law that permitted local school boards to reimburse parents for the cost of school transportation, including to religious schools, stating that this violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause because it forced taxpayers to indirectly support religious schools. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the New Jersey law did not violate the Establishment Clause, because it was neutral towards secular and religious schools.
St. Isidore presents a uniquely challenging case that goes beyond previous precedents. Earlier cases that may have decided in “favor” of religious causes did so in a neutral way, primarily giving aid to parents and students rather than religious institutions directly. In this case, St. Isidore is requesting direct funding from the state to operate their charter school, which would explicitly teach Catholicism. In the Trinity case, the church was merely asking for funds to fix a playground, not for funds to go towards the church or its teachings. In Everson, reimbursement funds were going directly to families, and then it was up to these families to decide how they spent that money. Once again, no money was being given directly from the state to any religious institution. Both cases are not strong enough precedents to favor St. Isidore in this case.
The implications of a ruling in St. Isidore’s favor would be far-reaching. Allowing Oklahoma to fund a public charter school that is explicitly teaching a specific religious view will completely change our country’s idea of the separation of church and state. I strongly believe that this case should be ruled in favor of Drummond. Charter schools are fundamentally public schools, funded entirely by state money. This makes St. Isidore a state actor, regardless of any private ownership. Having a state actor teach Catholic doctrine would clearly violate the Establishment Clause. Additionally, the previous Supreme Court cases that may be used as a precedent for this case involved indirect funding and general public benefits that were neutrally applied to both secular and religious clauses. St. Isidore receiving direct state funding specifically to teach religious doctrine would go far beyond allowing religious schools access to generally available benefits. Lastly, I feel that ruling in favor of St. Isidore would set a dangerous precedent for state funding of religious indoctrination. While the Free Exercise Clause prohibits discrimination against religion, the Establishment Clause prevents direct state funding of religious teachings. Religious groups would still be free to operate private schools, so the state of Oklahoma would not be discriminating against religion by maintaining public schools as secular institutions. For these reasons, I believe that the court would not be violating the Free Exercise Clause by ruling in favor of Drummond, and that it is necessary to rule in this way to protect the Establishment Clause.
6 comments:
I also agree that the funding of a religious charter school goes against the Establishment Clause. As you mentioned, charter schools are public education institutions. In past cases, the Supreme Court has ruled against funding religious classes or programs that assist schools in releasing students to religious classes. It would create an unequal system that favors more prominent religious sects, while minority religious groups would be unable to establish their own charter schools. Additionally, it goes against the principle of direct aid, as public funds would privilege those of larger sects.
I agree with your argument that funding a religious charter school violates the Establishment Clause. Under the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause was intended to create a wall of separation between church and state, and therefore, the government cannot establish nor aid any religion. By fully funding a charter school that teaches Catholicism, the state is not only directly engaging with the church by assisting their program of religious education but is favoring one religious denomination over others. There is no neutrality in fully funding a charter school with only Catholic teachings. This case could, to an extent, be related to Everson v. Board of Education. The Court found that the New Jersey Statute that allowed the reimbursement to parents by local school boards of the costs of transporting students to and from public and Catholic schools, did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court ruled this because the state did not contribute money to support the schools and had merely provided a general program to help parents transport their children safely to and from school. However, in this case, the state is directly contributing money to support a religious charter school. In doing so, they are “establishing” a religion. In Everson, had the state provided money to support parochial schools, the case would have demonstrated a violation of the Establishment Clause.
I completely agree with your argument. A ruling in favor of the religious charter school has the potential to diminish the strength of the Establishment Clause in future rulings. Although Trinity and Everson may be seen as government aid to religion on the surface, with a deeper look and like you said, they are both neutral decisions that do not directly aid the Church. This case, however, would be a firm establishment of religion by the US government as it would use taxpayer dollars to aid a religious school. Additionally, it would be seen as the government favoring one religion over another, which is prohibited under the First Amendment.
I agree that funding a school explicitly teaching Catholic doctrine challenges the crucial separation of church and state. Your comparison to cases like Trinity Lutheran and Everson illustrates how those precedents maintained state neutrality through indirect support, unlike St. Isidore’s direct funding. This direct funding risks endorsing religious indoctrination, which could set a dangerous precedent. Upholding secular public education is essential to avoid government favoritism toward any religion.
I agree with your argument that the court should favor Drummond in this case. Given the comparisons you have given in regard to previous Supreme Court cases, I also agree that St. Isidore has no leverage in swaying the court's opinion. In making a public school, funded by the government, one that teaches Catholicism, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment would be directly violated. In order to prevent the separation between Church and State from weakening, there should be no direct government funding to schools that teach any religion.
Post a Comment