Federal court rules in favor of Oklahoma Jewish charter school amid public funding lawsuit
A federal judge ruled that Oklahoma cannot exclude the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation from public charter funding solely because of its religious character. The order bars Oklahoma’s charter school board from denying the foundation funding while its lawsuit proceeds through federal court. The ruling follows a similar case brought by St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which remained without funding after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to decide its case. The state has 30 days to appeal the ruling to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
1 day ago
A federal judge has temporarily barred Oklahoma from denying public charter-school funding to a Jewish school solely because it is religious, while its lawsuit proceeds. The ruling revives a dispute over the state’s ban on religiously affiliated charter schools, but its effect on a Catholic school that previously lost a similar case remains unclear. 1 2
U.S. District Judge David Russell of the Western District of Oklahoma ruled that the state may not exclude the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation from charter funding solely because of its religious character. The order prevents the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board from denying the foundation funding while the case continues through the federal courts. 1 2
Russell said the school’s exclusion on religious grounds amounted to a “concrete” and “actual” injury, and cited Supreme Court precedent in support of its constitutional claim. 1 2
Oklahoma requires charter schools to be nonsectarian and unaffiliated with religious groups. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School challenged that policy after being denied access to the state’s charter-school funding program. 1 2
The Catholic school’s case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which did not issue a decision after the justices split, leaving the school without charter funding. The reports say it is not clear whether the new ruling will affect St. Isidore’s status. 1 2
The state has 30 days to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the Jewish charter-school foundation. The order is limited to the period while the lawsuit continues. 1 2
Religious liberty and public funding in education
Catholic teaching connects religious liberty with parents’ freedom to choose and provide their children’s education. Public funding need not be confined to government schools: Catholic sources argue that fair assistance can follow families’ educational choices, including choices of religious schools, while protecting the rights of all.
Education belongs primarily to parents, who have the right to choose the kind of schooling they judge best for their children and to establish educational institutions consistent with their beliefs. The state has a supporting role: it should protect and supplement families’ educational work, not claim an exclusive control over it.
This does not mean that public schools are inherently wrong or that every family must choose religious schooling. The US bishops explicitly recognize public, private, and religious schools as possible choices for parents. Their concern is that families—especially those with fewer resources—should not be prevented from choosing by financial disadvantage.
Pius XI argued that in a religiously diverse society, the state can support families’ educational choices while allowing the Church and family room to act. He presented aid to different schools chosen by families as compatible with distributive justice—that is, fairness in how public resources and burdens are shared.
The US bishops apply a similar principle to contemporary policy, pointing to tax credits and publicly funded scholarships as possible ways to help parents exercise their educational rights without discrimination. A Vatican instruction likewise says that schools outside the state system provide a public service and have a right to financial assistance.
The principle, then, is not that every funding program must take one particular form. It is that the state should not make meaningful parental choice available only to families who can afford it privately, or use funding to force families into schools contrary to their legitimate convictions.
Religious liberty is not only freedom from being compelled to profess a faith. It also concerns the ability of religious communities to live and act publicly, including through schools. A scholarly interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae describes this liberty as limiting government’s competence to judge religious belief and practice; it does not require religion to be treated as merely private.
For Catholic schools, this raises a related issue: public assistance should not become a means of taking control of a school’s religious identity or internal life. The theological analysis supplied here stresses the Church’s freedom to govern its schools according to Catholic principles.
These Catholic sources support a strong moral argument for parental choice, fair treatment of religious schools, and public assistance that enables families of modest means to choose. They do not, by themselves, settle the detailed legal design of a particular funding program or establish that every proposed voucher, tax credit, or grant is just. That judgment requires examining the program’s terms, who can access it, whether families are treated fairly, and whether religious schools retain appropriate freedom. The supplied material does not provide enough detail to assess any specific current policy or its constitutionality.