On April 30, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a landmark case that could redefine the boundaries of public education and religious liberty: whether Oklahoma can fund St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, the nation’s first religious public charter school.
The dispute pits advocates of school choice and religious freedom against defenders of church-state separation, with Oklahoma’s Republican leaders divided. Does funneling taxpayer dollars to a Catholic-run school violate the First Amendment’s bar on establishing religion, or does excluding it infringe on free exercise rights?
A Historic Case Takes Center Stage
St. Isidore, proposed by the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and Diocese of Tulsa, aims to operate as a publicly funded virtual charter school serving K-12 students. Approved by the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board in June 2023, the school would integrate Catholic teachings, requiring students to attend Mass and adhere to church doctrine. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued to block it, arguing it violates state and federal prohibitions on funding religious institutions.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in June 2024 that St. Isidore, as a public school, must remain secular, citing the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the state’s ban on sectarian funding. The U.S. Supreme Court’s review, with arguments heard on April 30, 2025, could overturn this, potentially allowing religious charter schools nationwide.
Why It Matters Now
The case arrives amid a conservative push for school choice, with 8% of U.S. students (3.8 million) enrolled in charter schools. Posts on X reflect polarized sentiment, with some praising the potential for faith-based options and others warning of a “serious threat” to secular education. Chief Justice John Roberts emerged as a pivotal vote during arguments, with a possible 4-4 split due to Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recusal, likely tied to her Notre Dame Law School ties.
Constitutional Battleground: First Amendment Tensions
The case hinges on the First Amendment’s dual religion clauses: the Establishment Clause, barring government endorsement of religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, protecting religious practice. St. Isidore and the charter board argue that excluding the school from public funding discriminates against its Catholic identity, violating free exercise rights. Opponents, including Drummond, contend that funding a religious school equates to state-sponsored religion, breaching the Establishment Clause.
Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to regulate public spending, but states manage education under the Tenth Amendment. Oklahoma’s Constitution explicitly prohibits public funds for sectarian purposes, amplifying the stakes.
Establishment Clause at Risk
Drummond’s team argued that St. Isidore, as a state-funded charter school, is a “state actor” bound by the Establishment Clause. The school’s plan to evangelize students and enforce Catholic doctrine risks entangling government with religion, a violation James Madison warned against in his opposition to taxpayer-funded religious instruction. The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized that charter schools, fully funded by the state, must remain nonsectarian.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed during arguments whether funding St. Isidore would “open the door” to state-backed religious indoctrination, citing the risk to religious liberty for non-Catholic taxpayers. A 2022 ACLU brief underscored that public schools must serve all students without promoting one faith.
Free Exercise Counterargument
St. Isidore, backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom and Notre Dame’s Religious Liberty Clinic, argues that barring it from charter funding discriminates against its religious status, violating the Free Exercise Clause. The school cites recent Supreme Court rulings, like Carson v. Makin (2022), which held that states cannot exclude religious schools from voucher programs if they fund private secular ones. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized during arguments that treating religious schools as “second-class” contradicts these precedents.
The school insists it is a private entity contracting with the state, not a public school, despite Oklahoma law classifying charters as public. This distinction is critical: if deemed private, Carson could mandate its inclusion; if public, the Establishment Clause prevails.
Recent Rulings Shift the Landscape
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has steadily eroded church-state separation in education. In Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017), the Court allowed a religious preschool to access public grants for playground resurfacing. Espinoza v. Montana (2020) required states funding private schools to include religious ones, and Carson v. Makin (2022) extended this to voucher programs. These rulings prioritize free exercise over establishment concerns, setting a precedent for St. Isidore.