
The Supreme Court’s 4-4 deadlock on the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School case has left religious liberty advocates concerned while leaving a critical constitutional question unanswered.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court’s tie vote upholds Oklahoma’s decision to deny St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School’s charter application based on its religious status
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recusal was decisive in creating the deadlock that left lower court ruling intact
- The case raises fundamental questions about religious discrimination in public education funding
- The decision contradicts the Court’s previous ruling in Carson v. Makin (2022), which prohibited states from denying benefits to religious institutions
- Religious liberty advocates argue the ruling misinterprets the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause while ignoring Free Exercise protections
Constitutional Clash: Religious Liberty vs. Establishment Concerns
The Supreme Court’s recent 4-4 deadlock on the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School case has preserved a lower court ruling that prevents religious schools from receiving charter school funding in Oklahoma. This stalemate leaves unresolved a critical constitutional question about whether religious organizations can be excluded from public benefits available to secular counterparts.
The split decision effectively endorses what many conservatives view as religious discrimination, preventing a Catholic virtual school from receiving the same charter school designation and funding that non-religious schools can obtain.
At the center of the controversy is St. Isidore’s application to become Oklahoma’s first religious charter school. Despite meeting all curriculum standards and being open to students of all backgrounds, the school was denied solely because of its Catholic identity and mission. This denial occurred despite the school satisfying all educational requirements that would qualify a secular institution for charter status.
The rejection appears to contradict the Supreme Court’s own precedent established in Carson v. Makin (2022), which held that states cannot deny religious organizations access to public benefits provided to others.
Barrett’s Recusal Creates Constitutional Gray Area
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s decision to recuse herself from the case proved decisive in creating the deadlock. While her reasons for recusal have not been publicly detailed, the outcome has left religious liberty advocates frustrated. Without a majority ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision stands, creating a constitutional gray area where religious schools can be treated differently than their secular counterparts. This situation particularly concerns conservatives who view religious liberty as a fundamental right that should be protected equally under the law.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has faced criticism from religious liberty advocates for opposing St. Isidore’s application. Critics argue that Drummond, who has portrayed himself as a conservative, abandoned conservative principles of religious liberty by arguing against equal treatment for faith-based charter schools. The attorney general’s position aligned with progressive interpretations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause while seemingly disregarding the Free Exercise clause that prohibits government from burdening religious practice.
Educational Choice and Parental Rights at Stake
Beyond the constitutional questions, the case highlights ongoing debates about educational alternatives and parental choice. Many conservative parents seek educational options that align with their values and beliefs, especially as traditional public schools face increasing criticism for academic underperformance and adoption of progressive curricula. The denial of charter status to St. Isidore effectively limits these parents’ ability to choose an education that reflects their religious values while still receiving the public funding that supports secular charter schools.
The case represents a broader struggle for educational freedom that transcends just religious considerations. Advocates argue that parents should have the right to direct their children’s education in accordance with their values, whether religious or secular. By denying charter status to religious schools, states effectively force religious families to either pay twice for education (through taxes and private tuition) or compromise their values by sending children to secular public schools. This financial penalty on religious practice strikes many conservatives as fundamentally unfair.
Looking Forward: The Continuing Battle
Despite this setback, the legal battle for religious liberty in education continues. Religious liberty advocates plan to continue challenging what they view as discriminatory policies that exclude faith-based institutions from public benefits. The split decision, while disappointing to supporters of St. Isidore, does not establish binding precedent nationwide. This leaves open the possibility that a similar case could reach the Supreme Court in the future, potentially with all nine justices participating and resolving the constitutional question definitively.
The foundational question remains unresolved: Can states exclude otherwise qualified schools from public charter programs solely because of their religious character? The answer has significant implications not just for religious schools but for the broader understanding of how the First Amendment’s religion clauses should be interpreted and balanced. Until the Supreme Court provides a clear ruling with a majority opinion, religious schools will continue to face uncertainty about their access to public educational funding in various states across the country.