Podcast Summary: Strict Scrutiny – "Will SCOTUS Sign Off on Religious Charter Schools?"

Podcast Information:

• Title: Strict Scrutiny
• Host/Author: Crooked Media
• Description: Strict Scrutiny delves into the United States Supreme Court and the surrounding legal culture, hosted by constitutional law professors Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray. The podcast offers in-depth, accessible, and candid analysis of Supreme Court cases, culture, and personalities, highlighting their impact on daily life.

Episode Overview:

• Episode Title: Will SCOTUS Sign Off on Religious Charter Schools?
• Release Date: May 5, 2025

I. Introduction and Recap

The episode begins with Leah Litman emphasizing the importance of church-state separation, highlighting efforts to push religious agendas into public education through charter schools. The hosts introduce the primary focus: the Supreme Court's upcoming decision on whether SCOTUS will uphold or overturn the establishment of religious charter schools.

II. The Oklahoma Religious Charter School Case

A. Background of St. Isidore's Virtual Charter School

• Context: Oklahoma permits charter schools within its public education system, mandating that these schools be non-sectarian and tuition-free.
• Development: In January 2023, the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa established St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School, explicitly linked to the Catholic Church and aimed at evangelizing.

B. Lower Court Decision

• Action: The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against St. Isidore's, citing violations of both state and federal laws, particularly the Establishment Clause.
• Outcome: The court determined that public funding for a religious charter school infringes upon the prohibition of public funding for religion, maintaining that such schools cannot integrate religious instruction into public education systems.

C. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

• Key Issue: Whether religious charter schools like St. Isidore's can receive public funding without violating the Establishment Clause.

• Justice Amy Coney Barrett's Recusal: [03:01] The absence of Justice Barrett, who previously taught at Notre Dame's Religious Liberty Clinic, potentially leads to a 4-4 split, leaving the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision intact.

  Notable Quotes:

  • Justice Kagan: [00:57] "Chief justice, please report."
  • Justice Sotomayor: [01:01] "It's an old joke, but when I..."
  • Justice Alito: [09:36] "First, every charter school law in the federal charter school program is unconstitutional because they all require the charter schools be public schools and that they be non sectarian."

D. Potential Implications

• Clean Sweep for Religious Plaintiffs: With the 4-4 vote, the decision against St. Isidore's stands, signaling potential victories for religious groups in similar cases.

• Educational Impact: This ruling could significantly alter the landscape of public education, allowing religious institutions to integrate their beliefs more seamlessly with public funding.

  Host Commentary:

  • Melissa Murray: [04:07] "There's not one man."
  • Kate Shaw: [07:03] "So just to be clear here, the very conservative Oklahoma Attorney General and the very conservative Oklahoma Supreme Court seem to think law still matters."

III. SCOTUS Dynamics and the Establishment Clause

A. Justice Interactions and Court Behavior

• Justice Kagan and Sotomayor: Emphasize the need to uphold secular principles in public education.

• Justice Alito and Kavanaugh: Display reluctance to uphold Establishment Clause constraints, signaling a shift towards favoring religious institutions.

  Notable Exchanges:

  • Justice Kavanaugh: [15:29] "So this is a response to Justice Sotomayor. And I just want to make sure this is clear."
  • Justice Kavanaugh: [20:21] "All the religious school is saying is don't exclude us on account of our religion."

B. State Action Doctrine

• Discussion: The hosts explore whether religious charter schools are considered state actors, affecting the applicability of the Establishment Clause.

  Host Insight:

  • Melissa Murray: [31:00] "It's also going to upend the state action doctrine as well. And that, I think, is also deeply problematic."

IV. Additional Cases and Legal Developments

A. AJT v. Osseo Area Schools

• Issue: Whether plaintiffs must demonstrate bad faith to prevail under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act.
• Current Status: The Supreme Court may rule against the school district, favoring plaintiffs seeking reasonable accommodations for disabilities.

B. Texas v. Becerra (now Texas v. Kennedy)

• Focus: Challenges to updated regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, particularly regarding gender dysphoria as a disability.
• Outcome: The case is stayed, with expectations that the Trump administration may withdraw the regulations.

C. LabCorp vs. Davis

• Question: Can a federal court certify a class action when some class members lack standing?
• Details: The case involves disabled individuals unable to access LabCorp kiosks, raising broader implications for class action litigation.

D. Kennedy vs. Braidwood

• Topic: Whether task force members under the Department of Health and Human Services are principal or inferior officers, affecting appointment procedures.

E. Martin vs. United States

• Subject: Whether individuals can sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for wrongful law enforcement actions.

V. Executive Branch Developments

A. Department of Education and HHS Policies

• Executive Orders: Efforts to dismantle the Department of Education and shift HHS focus from civil rights enforcement to restricting DEI programs and transgender healthcare.

  Host Commentary:

  • Kate Shaw: [55:08] "As litigants turn to the courts to try to cut back on the ADA's inclusion of people with disabilities, we also wanted to note that it's happening in tandem with Trump administration policies that would do the same thing."

VI. Public Opinion and Polling Insights

The hosts discuss recent polling data reflecting public opinion on the administration's performance:

• Approval Ratings: Only 39% approve of President Trump's performance at the 100-day mark, the lowest in 80 years.

• Immigration Policy: 53% disapprove of the president's handling, with independent voters showing a 61-37% disapproval margin.

• Executive Branch Authority: 54% believe the executive should not override court rulings, indicating limited support for presidential overreach.

  Notable Poll Quotes:

  • Leah Litman: [62:26] "The polling has been pretty dismal. It means that the kind of lawlessness that we've been watching... can become normalized really quickly."

VII. Court Culture and Academic Freedom

A. Investigation into Harvard Law Review

• Allegations: The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights is investigating claims that the Harvard Law Review uses race-based discrimination in its article selection process.

• Evidence Cited: From 1993 to 2018, all forwards were authored by white scholars. Post-2018, only one forward has been by a white scholar, the rest by women of color.

  Host Analysis:

  • Melissa Murray: [82:16] "It's only about getting rid of wokeness. The whole central conceit of this entire investigation is that they want people to think that the very fact that scholars of color were selected and accepted means that there was no merit here."
  • Kate Shaw: [80:47] "Harvard Law Review's Article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race... This is to make them scared to do this."

VIII. Achievements and Recommendations

A. Guest Achievements

• Alexandra Petrai: Won the Thurber Prize for humor writing for "Alexandra Petrai’s US History."
• Ellie Mistahl: Received the Hillman Journalism Prize for opinion analysis.

B. Book and Media Recommendations

• "Shadow Kingdom: God's Banker" – A true crime podcast investigating the mysterious death of a Vatican banker.
• "Girl" by Sophie Gilbert: Explores how pop culture pits women against themselves.
• "The Secret History of Home Economics" by Danielle Dranger: Chronicles the role of trailblazing women in shaping home economics.

IX. Conclusion

The hosts wrap up by emphasizing the critical nature of SCOTUS's upcoming decisions on religious charter schools and their broader implications for church-state separation and public education. They highlight the intersection of law and politics, the importance of public opinion in shaping judicial outcomes, and the ongoing challenges to civil rights and academic freedom under the current administration.

Notable Closing Remarks:

• Leah Litman: [99:37] "We need a platform that just gets."
• Melissa Murray: [102:51] "If you're one of the people ghosting, take note. Don't ghost."

Key Takeaways:

• The Supreme Court's potential split decision on Oklahoma's religious charter school could set a significant precedent for the integration of religious institutions within public education.
• Conservative justices exhibit growing reluctance to uphold traditional Establishment Clause constraints, signaling a possible shift in church-state jurisprudence.
• Additional cases before SCOTUS indicate a broader trend of reassessing civil rights protections under federal laws like the ADA and Section 504.
• Executive actions are systematically undermining civil rights enforcement, with notable impacts on education and health services.
• Public opinion remains largely unfavorable towards the current administration's policies, particularly on immigration and economic management, which could influence judicial responses.

Notable Quotes:

• Leah Litman: [07:03] "Just to be clear here, the very conservative Oklahoma Attorney General and the very conservative Oklahoma Supreme Court seem to think law still matters."
• Justice Alito: [09:36] "First, every charter school law in the federal charter school program is unconstitutional because they all require the charter schools be public schools and that they be non sectarian."

This summary encapsulates the critical discussions, legal analyses, and insights shared by the hosts of "Strict Scrutiny" during the episode on the Supreme Court's consideration of religious charter schools. It provides an informed overview for listeners seeking to understand the nuances and potential ramifications of the case without having to tune into the full podcast.