Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Supreme Court Considers Eroding the Separation of Church and State in Public Schools

News

Supreme Court Considers Eroding the Separation of Church and State in Public Schools

A cross with trees in the background

WASHINGTON–After the state of Oklahoma contested the right of a Catholic organization to get state funding for a charter school, the Supreme Court is weighing whether the separation of church and state required by the Constitution justifies Oklahoma’s decision to keep charter schools secular.

The court heard arguments on Wednesday in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, and its decision, expected in late June, could open the gates that separate the secular American education system from religion.


If the Court rules in favor of the Catholic school in Oklahoma, taxpayer dollars set aside for public schools could begin to flow toward religious schools across the country as well. That would reduce the resources and funding for public education. Currently, six of the nine justices are Catholic while less than 20 % of U.S. citizens practice Catholicism.

“The hallmark of public education is that taxpayers are paying for it, not private donations. The government's doing this,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. “Charter schools are using only government funds.”

In January 2023, the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa contracted with a statewide charter school board to create the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. The school never began its classes as the State Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, sued the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board.

He argued that they violated the state and U.S. Constitution because it forbids the use of public school funding for religious purposes. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with Drummond that charter schools, as public entities, are prohibited from using public funds for religious education.

“This case is ultimately about safeguarding religious liberty. Religious liberty means every citizen is free to worship as he or she sees fit. It does not mean the government should back religious indoctrination,” Drummond said in a press release from April 30. “The justices were clearly engaged. Their questions were robust and meaningful.”

In the wake of the state Supreme Court’s decision, the school board and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. They said charter schools are private entities participating in a state program and that preventing religious charter schools from accessing public funds is discrimination based on religion.

“The challenge here is to the facial religious discrimination that says: If you have any sectarian program, you can't be a part of the program,” Campbell said.

The state of Oklahoma’s lawyer stated that the charter school did not experience discrimination, but rather sought privileges not afforded to public entities.

In fact, Gregory Garre, Oklahoma’s lawyer, said that St. Isidore’s Catholic school policies would discriminate against non-Catholic students and faculty.

“They seek a special status: the right to establish a religious charter school plus an exemption from the nondiscrimination requirements that apply to every other charter school and that distinguish public schools from private schools,” Garre said during opening arguments.

The Archdiocese of Oklahoma issued a press release following the oral arguments, emphasizing that religious liberties were at stake.

“We are grateful that the U.S. Supreme Court heard our case and now entrust it to their wisdom,” Archbishop Paul S. Coakley & Bishop David A. Konderla of Oklahoma said in a press release. “Of course, we pray and hope for a decision that stands with religious liberty and the rights of Oklahoma families to make their own decisions in selecting the best educational options for their children.”

Constitutional Litigation Fellow Luke Anderson with Americans United for Separation of Church and State said a ruling for St. Isidore would allow public funding to be funneled toward religious schools. Anderson is involved in Americans United's separate case in Oklahoma's state court againstSt. Isidore on similar grounds.

“What has always been at the core of public education is students learning together across differences, students of varying backgrounds together in one classroom, and this case today, seeks to fracture that system, that long-standing system of public education that is open to all,” Anderson said.

Anderson said the United States’ founding fathers emphasized the separation of church and state because of religious persecution by the Church of England and its influence in British government.

“Without [seperation], we end up in a place where either you have multiple religions competing for the government's legitimacy,” Anderson said. “Or you have the government picking a favorite, and then you have religious control.”

He also added that if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of St. Isidore, many public charter schools would lose money set aside for secular education.

“That would mean diverting funds away from traditional public schools, and indeed, also diverting funds away from charter schools that are free and open to all, which is the core of what it means to be a public school — your free education that is open to all,” Anderson said.

Atmika Iyer is a graduate student in Northwestern Medill’s Politics, Policy, and Foreign Affairs reporting program. Atmika is a journalism intern with the Fulcrum.


Read More

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less