The Supreme Court seems to be open to a school with a religious charter in Oklahoma

The Supreme Court was opened Wednesday to allow Oklahoma to use government money to manage the country’s first religious charter school, which would teach a study program infused by Catholic doctrine.

The exclusion of the School of School System with Charter of the State would be equivalent to “classifying discrimination against religion,” said Brett judge Mr. Kavanaugh during the oral argument.

The main question in the case is whether the first amendment allows – or even requires – schools to sponsor and finance schools with a religious charter, which are public schools with substantial autonomy. A decision approving such schools would stimulate their spread, prolong The sequence of extraordinary victories of religion to the Supreme Court and lower the wall separating the church and the state more.

The Oklahoma school, Catholic virtual school St. Isidore from Sevillemust be exploited by the archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the diocese of Tulsa, and it aims to incorporate Catholic lessons in all aspects of its activities.

After the school board at Oklahoma Charter approved the proposal To open St. Isidore, the state prosecutor general, gentner Drummond, continued to arrest him. Mr. Drummond, a Republican, said that a religious public school would violate the prohibition of the first amendment to the establishment of the government of religion and the prohibition of the constitution of the State to spend public money to support religious institutions.

The judges seemed to be divided according to the usual ideological lines, the nominees republicans of the court are largely sympathetic to school and to its democrats. But judge Amy Creey Barrett has challenged the case, raising the possibility of an equal vote if only one appointed republican joined the three Democrats. This would leave a decision of the State Tribunal rejecting that the school is intact.

Chief judge John G. Roberts Jr., who asked questions supporting the two parties, seemed to be the most likely member of such a potential alliance.

In previous cases Maine And MontanaThe court judged that states that decide to create programs to help parents pay for private schools should allow them to choose religious schools. These decisions, said chief judge Roberts, “involved a fairly discreet involvement of the state” while the supervision by Oklahoma of the new school “strikes me so much more complete involvement”.

Later in the argument, however, he suggested that Another court decisions required to authorize the school.

A decision in favor of the school could affect laws in 46 other states that authorize schools to Charter, said Gregory G. Garre, lawyer for Mr. Drummond. It would also be, added, to blur an established line in the previous affairs of the Supreme Court distinguishing money from the government provided to parents to spend in private schools, including religious schools and government support provided directly to religious schools.

The dispute is the third major case dealing with religion to assert the judges in the space of about a month. In March, the court seemed ready to govern That an organization of Catholic charity in Wisconsin was entitled to a tax exemption which had been refused by a State Court on the grounds that the activities of the charitable organization were not mainly religious. Last week, the court pointed out that it was most likely to govern That parents with religious objections can withdraw their children from the classes in which stories books with LGBTQ themes are discussed.

Since 2012, when the court unanimously That religious groups were often exempt from the laws on employment discrimination, the pro-religious side won all the decisions signed except one of the 16 cases which concerned the religion clauses of the first amendment.

A large part of Wednesday’s argument was centered on the question of whether St. Isidore had been created and would be controlled by the State, which makes it a public school.

The lawyers of St. Isidore and the state agency that had approved it said that the school had been created in private and would serve independently.

But judge Elena Kagan said that St. Isidore’s schools and charters loved many characteristics of “regular public schools”.

“They accept everyone,” she said. “They are free. They can be closed by the state. There is a lot of implication of the programs by the state, the approvals of the state. They must comply with all state standards. ”

Judge Neil M. Gorsuch suggested that St. Isidore was sufficiently independent of Oklahoma, but that other states could exercise more control, for example, forcing civil servants to sit on the boards of directors in Charter.

“Have you thought about this boomerang effect for charter schools?” He asked James A. Campbell, lawyer for the Oklahoma agency who approved St. Isidore.

Mr. Campbell said that states “can set up their school programs in Charter as they wish”, but added that “there are important compromises, because part of what makes schools formidable is the autonomy they are provided”.

Judge Gorsuch returned to the point later in the argument. “An outfit here can be applied in certain states and cannot apply in others,” he said.

D. John Sauer, in his first argument as an American general solicitor, pleaded in favor of St. Isidore in the name of the Trump administration.

“Participation in schools in Charter is mediated by two layers of private choice, both of the candidates who create schools and parents who choose to send them their children,” he said. “Oklahoma does not control its programs, their staffing or their programs.”

Mr. Garre said that a decision in favor of St. Isidore “would lead to the astonishing rule which indicates not only can but must Funds and create public religious schools, an astonishing overthrow of the previous secrets of this court. »»

Judge Kavanaugh adopted opposite opinion. “The whole religious school says, it is” do not exclude us because of our religion “,” he said, adding: “You cannot treat religious and religious institutions and religious discourse as a second class in the United States.”

Judge Barrett challenged the case, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board c. DrummondN ° 24-394, but did not say why. She is a former professor of law to Notre Dame, including the religious clinic of freedom Represent the school in CharterAnd is a close friend of Nicole Garnett, a teacher who helped St. Isidore.

The school said that this would welcome students from “different confessions or no faith”. It was less categorical about teachers, saying that all Oklahoma charter schools are free to adopt their own personnel policies.

The Supreme Court of the State reigned against schoolWith the majority saying that she “would create a slippery slope” which could lead to “the destruction of the freedom of Oklahomans to practice religion without fear of government intervention”.

“St. Isidore is a school with a public charter,” said the majority, noting that the law of the state authorizing such schools forces them to be non-sectary. “Under national and federal law,” said the majority, “the state is not authorized to establish or finance St. Isidore.”

In The most recent decision from the United States Supreme Court to the government’s support to religious schools, CARSON c. Makin In 2022, the majority judged that Maine could not exclude religious schools from a program of state tuition fees.

But chief judge Roberts, writing for the majority, said that “Maine could provide strictly secular education in its public schools”.

In dissent, judge Stephen G. Breyer, who retired that year, said that even the Maine program, limited to private schools, was problematic.

“Members of minority religions, with too few members to establish schools, can see injustice in the fact that only those who belong to more popular religions can use state money for religious education,” wrote Breyer. “Taxpayers may be upset to have to finance the spread of religious beliefs they do not share and with which they disagree.”

Judge Kagan echoes this point on Wednesday, claiming that the position of the State favored traditional religions to the detriment of “religions which seem particular to many eyes, but are deeply felt”.