Religious Freedom or Government Support? The Debate Over Christian Charter Schools

Should a religious organization be allowed to run a public school if it wants religion to be part of what students learn? That is the question in Wilberforce Academy of Knoxville v. Knox County Board of Education, a November 2025 Tennessee lawsuit. Wilberforce Academy wants to open a publicly funded charter school with Christianity in the curriculum. However, Tennessee requires charter schools to be nonreligious. Wilberforce argues that this violates the Free Exercise Clause because religious organizations are being denied an opportunity available to other groups. Opponents argue that public money should not support religious instruction. I think both sides have reasonable arguments, but running a school and teaching religion with taxpayer money are different issues.

According to Wilberforce Academy's lawsuit, the school would serve students from kindergarten through eighth grade. Along with normal academic subjects, students would receive Bible instruction, and assemblies would include prayer and Scripture readings. Wilberforce says students from different religious backgrounds would be welcome and would not have to participate in Christian worship. Tennessee's requirements stopped its November 2025 proposal. In May 2026, a federal judge allowed the main claims to continue, although the court had not decided whether the state's restrictions were unconstitutional.

One thing I agree with Wilberforce about is that the government should not automatically exclude an organization just because it is religious. Tennessee allows private nonprofit organizations to operate charter schools, so why should a Christian organization be treated differently if it follows the same rules? I have a hard time seeing how that would be fair. Government neutrality means neither favoring nor discriminating against religion. Tennessee passed a law in May 2026 allowing religiously affiliated private colleges and universities to operate secular charter schools. I think that makes sense because it allows religious organizations to participate without requiring the schools themselves to provide religious instruction.

This case also reminded me of Carson v. Makin (2022). In that case, Maine offered tuition assistance to families who lived in areas without public secondary schools. However, families could not use that money at private schools that provided religious education. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated the Free Exercise Clause. Wilberforce argues that Tennessee is doing something similar by excluding religious education from public funding. At first, this seemed like a convincing comparison. If Maine could not exclude religious schools, why should Tennessee be allowed to? But the more I thought about it, the more I realized the situations are not exactly the same. In Carson, parents were choosing private schools for their children. Wilberforce, on the other hand, wants to operate a public charter school. Even though charter schools are often operated by private organizations, they are still part of the public education system. I think that difference matters quite a bit.

The ACLU and Tennessee parents and taxpayers opposing Wilberforce argue that public charter schools should not promote a particular religion. The organization is not just asking to have Christians operate the school. It wants Christianity to be included in the education students receive. Even if students are not forced to participate in religious worship, public money would still be supporting a school that teaches Christian beliefs. I can understand why people would see that as a problem under the Establishment Clause. There is a difference between allowing religious education and paying for it as part of a public school.

I also think it matters whether the government is providing direct or indirect aid to religion. In Carson, the money went to religious schools because parents independently chose to send their children there. In Wilberforce's case, Tennessee would be approving and funding a public charter school where religious instruction was part of the curriculum. That seems like more direct government involvement to me. I do not think religious organizations should be prevented from receiving public funding altogether. They can run hospitals, charities, and other programs that benefit everyone. But I think the government has more reason to draw a line when the money is being used to teach a particular religion in a public school.

What I keep coming back to is that Wilberforce is really raising two different issues. One is whether a religious organization should be allowed to operate a charter school. The other is whether that school should be allowed to provide religious instruction. I do not think those questions have to have the same answer. If a Christian organization wants to operate a secular charter school, it should have the same opportunity as any other qualified organization. But if it wants to use public funding to teach Christianity, I think Tennessee should be able to say no. The rule would apply to any religion.

In the end, I think Tennessee has the stronger argument when it comes to keeping religious instruction out of public charter schools. Wilberforce makes a good point about religious discrimination, and I would disagree with Tennessee if it excluded organizations solely because of their religious identity. But that does not mean the state should have to pay for religious education in its public schools. I think religious organizations should be treated equally when applying to operate charter schools, while the schools themselves should still be required to provide a secular education. That seems like a fair way to protect religious freedom without having the government become too involved in religion.