Despite a state ban on sectarian charter schools, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved St. Isidore’s request to participate in the state’s charter school program. The ban is rooted in the anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment added to Oklahoma's constitution in 1907.

This set up an interesting conflict where the governor, a Republican, and the Republican state superintendent of public instruction supported the applications, but the Republican attorney general brought the case that the Supreme Court heard Wednesday. He sued in 2023 to block the charter because it would violate state law and the US Constitution. In June 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with Attorney General Gentner Drummond that St. Isidore's Catholic character, despite being open to everyone and requiring attendance of no one, would violate the Constitution's establishment clause.

The crux of the questioning centered on religious neutrality versus hostility to religion. Justice Kavanaugh hit this theme hard. “You can’t treat religious people, and religious institutions, and religious speech as second-class in the United States,” Kavanaugh said to Gregory Garre, a former Bush administration solicitor general who represented Oklahoma's Attorney General Gentner Drummond. (As an aside, it is interesting to note how many prominent "conservatives" are lining up to oppose what I consider to be conservative positions once those positions have the high likelihood of becoming law. Funny, that.) “And when you have a program that’s open to all comers except religion...that seems like rank discrimination against religion,” Kavanaugh added. “They’re not asking for special treatment, they’re not asking for favoritism. They’re just saying, ‘Don’t treat us worse because we’re religious.’” //

If the Court rules the way it appears headed, it will shake up the charter school programs everywhere. First off, it will mean the thirty-eight Blaine Amendment states can no longer use that to block religious schools from applying for charter school status. The attorney for Oklahoma painted a picture of this, opening the door for the state to make personnel and curriculum decisions. "And if religious schools can qualify as public charter schools, it will raise questions about who can be admitted to such schools, whom the schools can hire as teachers, and what the curricula at those schools will be."

In reality, Oklahoma's lawyer is out of his tree. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the government has to stay out of the hiring and firing decisions of people filling "ministerial" functions in religious organizations (Supreme Court Tells Ninth Circuit to Stay Out of Personnel Decisions of Religious Organizations – RedState). And there is no controversy over admission (anyone who wishes to participate may), and St. Isidore agreed to follow the state educational standards when it applied for the charter.

Some online comments have warned that this opens the door to "Satanist" schools or Alphabet-people schools. News flash, we already have those. The real fear by the establishment, Democrat and Republican, is that religious charter schools will proliferate (they will) and that many parents will opt for them because they can be sure their kids will not be introduced to gay porn or secretly "transitioned" without their knowledge or consent. The same people invariably raise the question of Islamic madrassas as though I give a rip about how someone else educates their child. As the charter lays out specific testing and achievement goals, the fear of Middle East-style schools is simply a straw man argument designed to appeal to the worst sort of bigotry. //

The only real question is whether the Court will follow the direction of Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh and issue a full-throated defense of religion as a critical component of American history and society, or will it just nibble around the edges, causing decades of future controversy. //

Ready2Squeeze
3 hours ago
The real opposition to this is by the Teacher Unions ... if religious schools take off, union membership will likely drop off - and with it union dues payments. //

anon-tf71 Ready2Squeeze
3 hours ago
I'd say the States are even more opposed. When this happens they lose some control of education, maybe even all of it.

Not that this diminishes the (religious?) ferver with which teachers unions oppose it. //

eburke
3 hours ago edited
"it is interesting to note how many prominent "conservatives" are lining up to oppose what I consider to be conservative positions once those positions have the high likelihood of becoming law."

Of all the things Trump has accomplished (and the list is lengthy) his exposure of the faux conservative wing of the GOP is at the very top of the list. He has caused these UniParty hacks to expose themselves for whom they really are...and they hate him for it. //

PubliusCryptus
2 hours ago edited
How about the Federal and State governments stay out of schooling altogether? Make schools competitive, profit-driven organizations; that means antitrust actions against teachers(and other) unions. It also means shining a spot light on tax collections and requiring that those collections be justified by value delivered to the taxpayers. It has become very clear(Thank you DOGE) that government is, almost always, a terrible waste of resources. I would point to Medicare as corollary evidence of that claim. Governments should be the parties of last resort when solving problems.