Divided Supreme Court rejects publicly funded religious charter school

The New York Post ^ | 05/22/2025 | Samuel Chamberlin

[thegagline]

An evenly divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states cannot provide funding to religious charter schools, turning away from a potential decision that would have fundamentally changed K-12 education.

The 4-4 split meant the justices upheld the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling that both Sooner State law and the US Constitution prohibit taxpayer funding from going toward religious schools.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett had recused herself from arguments, having taught at the University of Notre Dame’s law school for about 15 years. The school’s religious liberty clinic had been representing one of the parties in the case, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School.

In June 2023, the five-member Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board had approved St. Isidore’s operation application in a 3–2 vote.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the board in response, arguing the approval was illegal and fretting that the move would “open the floodgates and force taxpayers to fund all manner of religious indoctrination, including radical Islam or even the Church of Satan.”

Both the Trump administration and Oklahoma GOP Gov. Kevin Stitt had sided with the charter school board and St. Isidore’s, which filed a separate lawsuit against Drummond that was consolidated into oral arguments last month.

---

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: religion; state; taxpayers

[Wallace T.]

It looks like Amy Comey Barrett found an excuse to recuse herself. So the three liberals plus one of the wishy washy moderates were enough to support non-public funding of religiously affiliated schools.

[HYPOCRACY]

Only the right ever recuses itslef. ACB showing herself to be a lightweight POS again.

[Alberta's Child]

From another thread ...

I'm not disappointed in this ruling. I don't think religious schools are doing themselves any favors when they ask Caesar to fund their operations.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Let me guess: Flight Log Roberts sided with the libs

[ladyjane]

I am disappointed in this vote but I’m happy not to have the Muslims being paid to open schools. You know that would have happened.

[Seruzawa]

Religious schools are foolish to let the govt camel into the rent.

[lula]

You are so right.

[UnwashedPeasant]

The anti-Christian atheist government schools are also religious and are certainly indoctrination.

[thegagline]

Taxpayer money will continue to flow to public schools that push the “religion” of secular humanism, men can be women, everything is viewed through the lens of the oppressed vs the oppressors, equity dictates that a particular group is not responsible for their actions and therefore is not held accountable.

[Waverunner]

Unfortunately Kegan and Sotomayor would never recuse themselves on a crucial vote.

[Wuli]

It’s not settled. Another case needs to be brought up in which Barret does not have to recuse herself.

[Alberta's Child]

I am not disappointed in this vote. I think Christian schools would be better served in directing their energies elsewhere — like eliminating compulsory education laws and all forms of government-run schools, for example.

[MayflowerMadam]

Religious schools should not be publicly funded. Ever.

That’s making a deal with the devil. Maybe literally. Taking a penny of taxpayers’ money compromises then.

[Wuli]

I am in favor of all public funds for K-12 education to be given to the parents of K-12 students in vouchers twice a year and leaving it to the parents as to which K-12 school, public, private, secular or religious based they want to give their vouchers to. The funds are a public obligation to the students, and to their education, not to propping up any particular education institution.

[Sgt_Schultze]

NGL, if they had affirmed public funding for religious schools, we would today be witnessing an unstoppable rash of announcements of new charter Muslim schools. This ruling was a good ruling.

[T.B. Yoits]

The U.S. Supreme Court has no issue with taxpayer money funding religious schools overseas.

[gibsonguy]

“Divided Supreme Court rejects publicly funded religious charter school”

The SC did not reject. They made no decision. ACB ducked it. Rats never recuse. The only time a rat will recuse is if them not recusing guarantees a successful appeal petition.

[Salvavida]

I’m OK with this ruling because we never had the courage to state in the founding documents that Divine Providence only comes from the God of the Bible.

Foundational issue.

If it were approved, we’d be funding Islamic and satanic schools, but I repeat myself.

[Redmen4ever]

The is tentatively a landmark decision. Because it doesn’t strike down the Oklahoma state supreme court, the 4-4 decision means it is legal for Oklahoma to directly fund public schools described as charter school that engage in prayer and the teaching of religion.

Having said this, Supreme Court justices are NOT to recuse themselves for the mere appearance of a conflict of interest (because there is no good way to substitute for them).

Every Presidential election and every Senate election is totally crucial. We need to keep up the momentum we have regarding the judiciary.