Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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

A Democrat’s Answer to the Immigration Issue

"America would not have been able to become the economic powerhouse it is without...immigrants," writes Ronald L. Hirsch. "So what's the political and humane solution to the immigration problem?"

Getty Images, Thanasis

A Democrat’s Answer to the Immigration Issue

Polls show that the issue of immigration—actually, it's just illegal immigration—has become a major concern to a majority of Americans. No doubt that is largely because of Trump's vilification of undocumented immigrants.

But illegal immigration has, in fact, been a major problem for many years. Why? Mainly because roughly 11 million undocumented individuals have been living here for years, working and paying taxes, yet they are outside the legal framework of our society. That is the problem.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement
Police car lights.
Getty Images / Oliver Helbig

The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement

Immigration is governed by a patchwork of federal laws. Within the patchwork, one notable thread of law lies in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Act authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work in tandem with local agencies and law enforcement on deterrence and enforcement efforts. Like the now-discontinued Secure Communities program that encouraged information sharing between local police agencies and ICE, the law specifically authorizes ICE to work with local and federal partners to detain and deport removal-eligible immigrants from the country.

What are Sanctuary Policies?

Keep ReadingShow less
Lady Justice

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States.

the_burtons/Getty Images

Trump’s Tariffs Are Unlawful: How the “Nondelegation Doctrine” Limits Congress

This guest post from Eric Bolinder, a professor of law at Liberty University, is based on his recent law review article on the constitutionality of President Trump's tariffs. Before Liberty University, Eric was counsel at Cause of Action Institute, where he helped litigate Loper Bright, the case that overturned Chevron deference, and at Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States. Without congressional action, these tariffs are highly vulnerable to legal challenges as they may violate something called the "nondelegation doctrine." Recently, two courts, the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, enjoined the tariffs (though both decisions are stayed), finding that the President had no statutory authority to implement them. These courts echoed what I'll discuss below, that if the statute does authorize tariffs, then they may be unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Blocks Universal Injunctions: Major Shift in Executive Power Limits
How reforming felony murder laws can reduce juvenile justice harms
Getty Images

Supreme Court Blocks Universal Injunctions: Major Shift in Executive Power Limits

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches—particularly in how federal courts can respond to presidential actions.

Keep ReadingShow less