Federal court hears arguments on Oklahoma’s ban for religious charter schools
Federal court heard arguments on whether Oklahoma’s law banning religious charter schools violates the First Amendment’s free‑exercise protection. Oklahoma’s charter law permits only nonsectarian applicants, excluding Catholic and Jewish schools from public funding. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against a Catholic charter proposal, and the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked 4‑4 on the issue. A Jewish foundation has sued the state, asking a federal court to force the charter board to consider religious applicants under Supreme Court precedent.
about 2 months ago
Oklahoma’s ban on religious charter schools is being challenged in federal court after a state supreme court ruled that charter schools must remain secular, prompting lawsuits from a Jewish charter‑school foundation and opposition from the state attorney general and secular‑rights groups. 1
Oklahoma created its charter‑school program in 1999, allowing publicly funded, privately operated K–12 schools that must be “nonsectarian.” 1
The law’s secular requirement barred any school with a religious identity from receiving public funds. 2
In 2023 the Statewide Charter School Board (SCSB) approved a Catholic charter‑school proposal, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. 1
Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued to block the approval, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that charter schools are public schools and therefore must be secular. 2
St. Isidore’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court resulted in a 4‑4 deadlock, leaving the state‑court decision in place. 1
The National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation filed a charter‑school application that was denied. 1
Represented by the Becket Fund, the foundation sued in federal district court, asking the court to require the SCSB to consider religious applicants under Supreme Court precedent that grants equal access to government programs for religious entities. 2
Attorney Daniel Chen of Becket emphasized that charter schools are “private actors” and should not be excluded from a public‑benefits program. 1
First Liberty Institute’s Hiram Sasser explained that the SCSB is bound by the state statute and the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling, even though the board would prefer to evaluate applicants on merit rather than religion. 2
Sasser said the board hopes the federal case will resolve the conflict so it can stop “discriminating” against religious schools. 1
John Meiser of Notre Dame’s Religious Liberty Clinic argued that the core issue is whether charter schools are “public” or “private” institutions. 2
He noted that while Oklahoma labels charter schools as public, they are operated by private groups and funded through contracts, suggesting they should be treated as private actors for constitutional analysis. 1
Meiser warned that a Supreme Court ruling favoring the Jewish foundation would likely open the door for Catholic and other faith‑based charter schools. 2
Attorney General Drummond, supported by the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, maintains that taxpayer‑funded religious charter schools violate the state’s secular mandate. 1
He argues the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and that the SCSB is “hobbling” taxpayers’ money by considering religious applicants. 2
The federal district court has heard oral arguments (August 5, 2026) and the plaintiffs have sought a preliminary injunction to operate the Jewish charter school while litigation continues. 1
No ruling has been issued yet, and both sides anticipate that the case could return to the U.S. Supreme Court for a definitive resolution. 2
A decision that charter schools are private actors would permit religious schools to compete for public funds, potentially reshaping Oklahoma’s education landscape. 1
Conversely, upholding the secular ban would reinforce the separation of church and state in publicly funded education, limiting religious participation in charter programs. 2
Assess Catholic charter schools’ First Amendment rights in Oklahoma
Oklahoma’s dispute over religious charter schools concerns a central First Amendment question: may a state exclude a religiously affiliated charter school from the public charter-school system solely because the school is religious, or because it would provide religious instruction?
The strongest constitutional argument for the school is that such exclusion may constitute religious discrimination under the Free Exercise Clause. Oklahoma’s strongest response is that charter schools are public schools, and therefore the state may require them to be nonsectarian under the Establishment Clause and the state’s charter-school framework. The constitutional outcome depends substantially on how courts classify charter schools: as government actors delivering public education, or as private religious institutions participating neutrally in a public educational program.
The Catholic sources support broad religious-liberty and parental-choice principles, but they do not themselves resolve the precise Oklahoma litigation.
Catholic teaching recognizes religious freedom as a right belonging not only to individuals but also to communities and institutions. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states that religious freedom includes “the right of the person and of communities to social and civil freedom in religious matters.” It further teaches that the state must not force a person to act against conscience or prevent action consistent with conscience.
This supports protection for a genuinely religious educational institution’s ability to maintain its religious identity. Religious liberty would be substantially weakened if government could invite religious organizations to participate in public programs but require them to abandon the religious character that defines their mission.
Pope Benedict XVI similarly warned against reducing religious liberty to merely private worship. He identified concern about efforts “to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.” The implication is important for charter schools: religious freedom can include the freedom to carry out an institution’s religious mission in public life, including education, rather than merely the freedom to conduct worship after school hours.
At the same time, Catholic teaching does not treat religious freedom as a right to impose belief by force. The Church teaches that “the truth cannot be imposed except by virtue of its own truth,” and that freedom is ordered toward the human person’s search for God and truth. Thus, a Catholic assessment must distinguish between:
A religious school’s participation in a public program is not automatically coercive, particularly where enrollment is voluntary and parents retain meaningful alternatives. But the precise structure and operation of the school matter.
The school’s principal argument is that Oklahoma may not exclude it merely because it is religious. The USCCB’s education advocacy identifies a line of Supreme Court decisions—Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson—as recognizing that government may not discriminate against religious schools or families seeking educational assistance because of religious status or religious use. The USCCB summarizes the principle this way:
The Free Exercise Clause protects against discrimination based not only on a school’s status as religious but also on its religious use of public funds.
That principle gives the Oklahoma school a serious constitutional claim if the state’s exclusion is based on the fact that the school is religious or would teach through a religious worldview.
The relevant distinction is between neutral regulation and religious exclusion:
The USCCB also argues that Catholic institutions should not be required to compromise their religious convictions in order to participate in government programs. Its Faithful Citizenship document states that government should not require Catholic institutions “to compromise their moral or religious convictions” as a condition of participation in public health or human-service programs. Although that passage concerns government services rather than charter schools specifically, the underlying principle is directly relevant: public partnership should not automatically become religious surrender.
Oklahoma’s counterargument is not trivial. A charter school is created under state law, receives public funds, and performs a public educational function. The state can therefore argue that a religious charter school would amount to the government itself operating or sponsoring religious education.
That argument rests on a concern distinct from hostility to religion: the state may contend that it must remain neutral and may not use public institutions to advance religious instruction. If the charter school is legally a public school, the state may argue that religious operation is not merely private participation in a public benefit but an exercise of governmental authority.
Catholic teaching recognizes legitimate governmental authority and does not equate religious liberty with exemption from every generally applicable law. Pope Leo XIII taught that Christian freedom “has nothing in common with a seditious and rebellious mind” and does not derogate from obedience to public authority. But he also held that when public authority commands something plainly contrary to God’s will, “it is right not to obey.” Applied here, the question is whether Oklahoma’s restriction is a legitimate, evenhanded regulation of public education or an unjust command that effectively suppresses a religious mission.
The constitutional analysis therefore turns on institutional design:
The more the school resembles a private institution chosen by parents through a neutral program, the stronger the Free Exercise argument becomes. The more it resembles a government-created and government-operated school exercising state authority, the stronger Oklahoma’s Establishment Clause argument becomes.
The Catholic Church places substantial weight on the authority of parents in education. The USCCB teaches that parents are “the first and primary teachers” of their children and possess a fundamental right to select a school corresponding to their convictions. It also states that public authorities have a duty to guarantee the concrete conditions necessary for exercising that right.
The USCCB further explains that public support may be distributed in a way that genuinely permits parents to choose among educational options according to conscience. This principle favors educational arrangements in which public resources follow parental choice rather than being used to impose a single official worldview.
The distinction is particularly important in Oklahoma. If parents—not the state—choose a religious school from among multiple options, the arrangement can be characterized as support for families rather than government establishment of religion. The USCCB points to Supreme Court recognition of parental rights to choose religious schools and to the permissibility of tuition assistance used at religious schools.
However, parental choice does not answer every question. A charter school may be selected voluntarily while still being legally classified as a public entity. Nor does parental choice eliminate the state’s obligation to protect children, maintain academic standards, and prevent coercion. Catholic teaching supports parental authority, but it also understands education as a serious formation of the whole person, not merely a consumer transaction.
Catholic education is not simply education with optional religious decoration. Pope Benedict XVI described Catholic schools as addressing the “material, intellectual and spiritual needs” of students and as contributing to the evangelizing mission of the Church. Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone likewise presents Catholic education as grounded in the primacy of truth rather than cultural relativism.
Accordingly, a requirement that a Catholic school eliminate prayer, religious teaching, theological anthropology, or faith-based governance could threaten the institution’s identity rather than merely regulate its administration. The USCCB has expressly opposed efforts to undermine faith-based organizations’ ability to preserve their “identity and integrity” when partnering with government.
This does not mean that a religious charter school should receive immunity from all public requirements. Catholic principles allow government to impose reasonable standards protecting the common good. But those standards should be:
The USCCB’s discussion of church autonomy also emphasizes that government must not treat religious bodies according to rules crafted specifically against their religious identity. While that source concerns ecclesial legal personality rather than charter schools, it reinforces the broader First Amendment principle that government may not impose special disabilities based on religious status.
On the materials available, the school appears to have a substantial Free Exercise claim, especially if Oklahoma’s ban is categorical and excludes the school because it is religious or because its educational program has a religious use.
The state has a substantial Establishment Clause and public-school argument if the charter school would legally exercise governmental authority, use public funds under direct state control, and provide compulsory or state-sponsored religious instruction. That argument is strongest where the charter system is understood as the government’s own educational program rather than as a neutral mechanism through which parents choose among public and private providers.
The most constitutionally defensible approach would likely be one that:
Catholic teaching supports the principle that religious institutions should be able to serve the common good without surrendering their religious identity, and that parents have a fundamental right to choose education consistent with their convictions.
Applied to Oklahoma, the decisive constitutional issue is whether the state is neutralizing religion or legitimately regulating a public school. If Oklahoma excludes the charter school simply because it is religious, the Free Exercise challenge is strong. If the state can show that charter schools are governmental institutions and that the restriction is necessary to prevent the government from directly operating religious schools, the Establishment Clause defense is stronger. Catholic principles favor religious liberty, parental choice, and institutional integrity while also recognizing the state’s legitimate responsibility to protect the common good and prevent coercion.