The radical Leftist judges on the nation’s highest court are furious. This case has turned their heads upside down.
And these Leftist Supreme Court justices blew a fuse over this high stakes case.
In a riveting session at the Supreme Court, three justices with progressive leanings—Kentanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—challenged attorneys representing St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, the nation’s first religious charter school.
The case, which unfolded on Wednesday, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing national conversation about school choice, religious freedom, and public funding. With sharp exchanges and probing questions, the justices delved into whether a school rooted in Catholic teachings can rightfully access state resources while navigating the complex interplay of constitutional protections.
The heart of the dispute lies in whether St. Isidore, a virtual charter school in Oklahoma, should be treated as a private entity or a public institution. Justices pressed the school’s legal team on how it would accommodate students from diverse religious backgrounds.
Justice Jackson zeroed in on what she saw as a contradiction in the school’s stance. St. Isidore claims it is being “discriminated against” under the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which protects religious practice from government interference. Yet, Jackson noted, the school is simultaneously seeking a unique privilege: the ability to operate a publicly funded religious school, something “no one else has.”
“Now, in this case, St. Isidore doesn’t want to establish a secular school, which is what the public benefit is. Instead, they want to establish a religious school,” Jackson stated. “So as I see it, it’s not being denied a benefit that everyone else gets. It’s being denied a benefit that no one else gets, which is the ability to establish a religious public school.”
Michael McGinley, representing St. Isidore, countered that Oklahoma’s charter school program cannot exclude religious institutions without violating the Constitution. “When you open a program to other private organizations, you can’t exclude the religious,” he argued, framing the issue as one of equal access to public benefits.
Justice Sotomayor raised concerns about the school’s commitment to inclusivity, given its stated mission to “fully embrace” Catholic teachings and “fully incorporate” them “into every aspect” of its curriculum, including mandatory Mass attendance. She questioned how St. Isidore would handle students who do not share its faith or who might object to its religious requirements.
“What would you do with a charter school that doesn’t want to teach evolution, or it doesn’t want to teach history, including the history of slavery, or it doesn’t want to include having children of another faith in them, as this one does?” she asked. Sotomayor pointedly noted, “This one does not say it won’t exclude children of other faiths. But it said, if you want to attend this school, you have to attend Mass.”
James Campbell, another attorney for the school, clarified that St. Isidore does not require students to affirm Catholic beliefs. The school’s handbook states “point-blank” that students are not obligated to adopt its religious views, and it “allows exceptions for anyone that doesn’t want to attend Mass,” he said.
Clause, which bars the government from endorsing or favoring a religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which safeguards individuals’ rights to practice their faith.
The justices grappled with two key questions: Are charter schools public entities bound by the Establishment Clause’s restrictions, or are they private contractors? If the latter, does Oklahoma’s refusal to fund St. Isidore infringe on its religious freedoms?
St. Isidore’s legal team argued that the school operates as a private entity under contract with the state, not as a state actor. They cited recent Supreme Court rulings that, in their view, support religious organizations’ access to public benefits.
The case traces back to June 2023, when the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved St. Isidore’s contract, paving the way for public funding. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court later intervened, ruling that such funding violated the Establishment Clause. St. Isidore appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case last fall.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has taken a firm stance against the school, arguing that charter schools are essentially public institutions. “Charter schools no doubt offer important educational innovations, but they bear all the classic indicia of public schools,” he said in a Supreme Court filing.
If Oklahoma’s charter school law violates the Free Exercise Clause, Drummond warned, it would represent “one of the most far-reaching free exercise violations in the nation’s history.”
As oral arguments drew to a close, McGinley emphasized the element of choice. “No student will be compelled or placed in a charter school except by private choice,” he told the justices. “A ruling for us will only increase choice.”
With 45 states currently authorizing charter schools, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision is poised to reshape the landscape of education and religious liberty across the country. The ruling will likely set a precedent for how states navigate the tension between fostering educational innovation and upholding constitutional boundaries.
Stay tuned to the Conservative Column.
