Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
With Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself, a 4-4 tie means the earlier ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that taxpayer dollars can’t be used to fund religious education will stand — for now.
[UPDATE] On Thursday, May 22, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 4-4 decision in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, et al v. Drummond, a case weighing whether St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School could receive state funds through a charter contract.
The case had been brought by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who challenged the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board’s decision to fund the school, which would have been the first religious charter school in the nation.
When there’s a tie the Court automatically affirms the lower court ruling. As a result, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling that the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board’s attempt to create a religious charter school violated the Establishment Clause will stand.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case, leading to the split.
No opinion was issued in the case and the votes of the justices were not released.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, said in a press release,
“While the Supreme Court’s order is disappointing for educational freedom, the 4-4 decision does not set precedent, allowing the court to revisit this issue in the future. The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear that when the government creates programs and invites groups to participate, it can’t single out religious groups for exclusion, and we will continue our work to protect this vital freedom for parents and students.
We remain proud of our clients, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, and their brave stand for educational freedom.”
ADF is referring to various Supreme Court rulings, most notably in the 2022 case of Carson v. Makin, which held that if states choose to fund private schools, they cannot deny funding to religious schools solely due to their religious status or usage.
Carson was decided based on prior rulings in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, both of which found that states cannot deny public funding to religious organizations due to their religious character.
The Supreme Court’s unwillingness to affirm the neutrality principle in this case means that Oklahoma families will have fewer educational choices.
{Published on February 22, 2025} The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear the case of Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, et al v. Drummond, which focuses on the constitutionality of state funds being used for religious charter schools.
Attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is representing the Charter School Board, appealed to SCOTUS after the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the board was not permitted to authorize a charter contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School solely based on its religious affiliation.
When the board approved its application in 2023, St. Isidore was set to become the first-ever faith-based charter school in the United States.
However, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond challenged the legality of the board’s decision and the case was heard by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
In June 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down the board’s decision, characterizing its actions as “a type of harm to religious liberty” and finding that the approval of St. Isadore’s application violated Oklahoma’s constitution, as well as the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, ADF argued that the case went against the Supreme Court’s own 2022 ruling in Carson v. Makin, which found that a state “violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.”
ADF Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell hailed the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case, stating,
“Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer. There’s great irony in state officials who claim to be in favor of religious liberty discriminating against St. Isidore because of its Catholic beliefs.
The U.S. Constitution protects St. Isidore’s freedom to operate according to its faith and supports the board’s decision to approve such learning options for Oklahoma families. We’re pleased the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this case, which is of the utmost import to families and children in Oklahoma and throughout the country.”
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stinnett, R, who supports St. Isadore’s participation in the charter school program, predicted that the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case will be “one of the most significant religious and education freedom decisions in our lifetime.”
SCOTUS has consistently ruled that religious institutions cannot be barred from participating in publicly available programs simply because of their religious identity.
This neutrality principle was affirmed most recently in the aforementioned case of Carson v. Makin, in which, in a 6-3 ruling, the Court sided with parents who had been denied the ability to use Maine’s tuition assistance program at private religious schools due to their faith-based teachings. The conservative majority struck down the state’s exclusion of religious schools, ruling that such a restriction is unconstitutional.
The Court determined that Maine’s requirement for tuition assistance to be used only at “nonsectarian” schools violates the Free Exercise Clause. This clause protects individuals not only from direct prohibitions on religious exercise but also from indirect coercion or penalties that burden religious practice.
Maine’s tuition program exists to support students in areas without local public schools, providing taxpayer-funded assistance to attend another public or private institution. However, the state prohibited the use of these funds at religiously affiliated schools, labeling them “sectarian.”
In reaching its decision, the Court referenced two prior cases — Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue — which also dealt with religious liberty and the use of public funds.
In Trinity Lutheran, the Court ruled that Missouri could not exclude otherwise eligible recipients from a public benefit solely based on their religious identity. In Espinoza, the Court found that Montana’s restriction on using scholarship funds for religious schools violated the Free Exercise Clause by preventing families from choosing faith-based education. The Court in Espinoza stated that while a state is not required to fund private education, if it chooses to do so, it cannot exclude schools based solely on their religious nature.
Applying these precedents, the Court ruled in Carson v. Makin that the same principles applied, overturning a prior ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Ultimately, the ruling reaffirmed that states cannot exclude religious schools from generally available education funding solely because of their faith-based teachings.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments this spring.
No child should be denied a quality education at a religious school simply because the government refuses funding for it. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Carson v. Makin reaffirms a fundamental truth: religious liberty is a constitutional right, and the government cannot discriminate against faith-based institutions simply for being “too religious.”
This case is not about the separation of church and state, as some claim. A true commitment to that principle would mean upholding religious freedoms rather than restricting them.
Religious liberty is a God-given right, enshrined in our Constitution. A government that intentionally excludes religious institutions from generally available programs is not upholding neutrality — it is engaging in discrimination. The Supreme Court’s decision could potentially serve as a source of victory not just for parents seeking the best education for their children but for the broader principle that faith should not be penalized in public life.
In a time when secular influences often push Christianity out of the public square, we can be grateful that God has preserved leaders who uphold justice. Parents are biblically called to oversee their children’s education (Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4) while acknowledging spiritual battles that will be faced in the process (2 Timothy 3:12).
The Founders, by divine providence, established constitutional protections for religious freedom, ensuring that faith-based institutions remain a vital part of society.
The Court’s recent decisions on this issue remind us that our rights do not come from the government but from God — and those rights must be defended. Hopefully, it will once again defend and affirm those rights in its upcoming decision in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond.
Many K-12 schools now embrace the secular woke agenda and are hostile to Christian beliefs and parental rights. Fortunately, parents don’t have to settle for this. Liberty University Online Academy is a K-12 program designed to educate your children in the ways of the Lord while preparing them to stand firm in their faith when they graduate. Our flexible online curriculum ensures that your student is trained at your convenience and keeps YOU the ultimate educator of your children.
