Podcast Summary: Tangle – "The Supreme Court's Religious Charter School Ruling"

Date Released: May 28, 2025
Host: Isaac Saul
Episode Title: The Supreme Court's Religious Charter School Ruling

Introduction

In this episode of Tangle, host Isaac Saul delves into the significant Supreme Court decision regarding religious charter schools, specifically focusing on the case Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. Saul sets the stage by highlighting the case's potential impact on the separation of church and state, a foundational principle in American governance. He also teases a forthcoming personal narrative exploring his Zionist identity and its complexities amid the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Breaking Down the Supreme Court Ruling

John Law, the executive producer, takes listeners through the intricacies of the Supreme Court's decision. The case centered on St. Isidore of Seville, a Catholic online charter school in Oklahoma City, which sought public funding to support its K-12 Catholic curriculum. The Oklahoma Supreme Court had previously blocked this funding, citing that publicly funding an explicitly religious school breached the state's constitution.

Key Points:

• Supreme Court's Split Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 4-4 decision after Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself. This split ruling affirmed the Oklahoma Supreme Court's stance, preventing St. Isidore from receiving public funds. Due to the deadlock, the Court did not set a national precedent but upheld the state-level decision.

• Justice Barrett's Recusal: Barrett's absence was notable, especially given her connections to the case. She is friends with an attorney who counseled St. Isidore and was involved with a religious liberty clinic at Notre Dame's law school, where she teaches. Her recusal effectively left the conservative bench without a decisive majority.

• Historical Context: The Court had previously ruled in favor of religious schools receiving public funding in cases like:

  • 2017: Allowed a church preschool to access Missouri state funds.
  • 2020: Permitted religious schools to participate in a Montana tax credit program.
  • 2022: Affirmed that Maine students could use vouchers at religious institutions.

Notable Quote:

"The Supreme Court blocked a religious online charter school from obtaining public funding from the state of Oklahoma." — John Law (05:08)

Reactions from the Left

The left responded with a mix of surprise and cautious optimism, recognizing the decision as a safeguard for the separation of church and state while acknowledging that the broader debate remains unresolved.

Key Perspectives:

• Slate's Mark Joseph Stern: Highlighted the decision as a victory for church-state separation, noting that conservative justices favored St. Isidore's rights under the First Amendment. However, Chief Justice John Roberts exhibited hesitancy, which played a pivotal role in the split decision.

  Quote:

  "Thursday's decision is as big a victory as anyone can expect from this court for the separation of church and state." — Mark Joseph Stern, Slate

• Vox's Ian Millhiser: Viewed the ruling as a setback for the religious right, emphasizing that it maintains the secular nature of public schools. However, he expressed concern that future cases might overturn this outcome, especially with Justice Barrett's potential influence.

  Quote:

  "Thursday's non-decision in Oklahoma means that this long-standing regime guaranteeing public schools remain secular institutions is still in effect." — Ian Millhiser, Vox

• Eli Fetterman, US News and World Report: Argued that religious charter schools could undermine religious freedom by subjecting faith-based education to government oversight, risking the independence of religious institutions.

  Quote:

  "Faith groups running state-funded charter schools invite government oversight and risk losing the independence that allows them to stay true to their mission and values." — Eli Fetterman, US News and World Report

Reactions from the Right

Conversely, the right expressed disappointment and frustration over the deadlock, viewing it as a temporary obstacle rather than a definitive ruling against religious charter schools.

Key Perspectives:

• Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: Criticized Justice Barrett's recusal, describing the decision as a missed opportunity to bolster religious freedom and educational choice.

  Quote:

  "The lack of a decision means that the faithful in Oklahoma will be denied an opportunity to attend Saint Isidore." — Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

• Andrea M. Pachati Bear, National Catholic Register: Asserted that the decision is merely a temporary setback and predicted that similar cases would reappear, likely with a more favorable outcome if Justice Barrett participates.

  Quote:

  "It's only a matter of time before the Court hears a similar case once again. When that time comes, let's hope that Justice Barrett is on the bench." — Andrea M. Pachati Bear, National Catholic Register

• Carrie Campbell Severino, National Review: Critiqued Justice Barrett's recusal, suggesting it hampers the Court's ability to provide clear guidance on important issues like the funding of religious charter schools.

  Quote:

  "The absence of one justice risks the affirmance of a lower court decision by an evenly divided court, potentially preventing the Court from providing a uniform national rule of decision on an important case." — Carrie Campbell Severino, National Review

Isaac Saul’s Take

Returning to his own analysis, Isaac Saul offers a comprehensive perspective on the ruling's implications.

Legal Analysis:

• Separation of Church and State: Saul concurs with the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing that charter schools receiving public funds should adhere to non-religious standards to protect both government integrity and the independence of religious institutions.

• State vs. Private Entities: He challenges St. Isidore's argument that charter schools are privately operated and not state actors, maintaining that public funding inherently involves government oversight.

Practical Implications:

• Temporary Victory: While the ruling is a win for maintaining secular public education in Oklahoma, Saul anticipates that similar challenges will arise, potentially leading to different outcomes in the future, especially with Justice Barrett's influence.

• Taxpayer Concerns: Emphasizing fiscal responsibility, Saul argues that public funds should not be used to support religious education without public consent, drawing parallels to other areas where taxpayer money is allocated with oversight.

Notable Quote:

"If my tax dollars are going to fund your institution, then I should get a say in how it runs." — Isaac Saul (19:42)

Conclusion:

Isaac Saul acknowledges the ruling's significance but remains cautious about its longevity and broader impact. He underscores the enduring value of the separation of church and state, both for government operations and the autonomy of religious organizations.

Additional Insights

While the main focus of the episode centers on the Supreme Court ruling, the podcast also touches upon related topics such as the upcoming personal narrative from Saul and a brief Q&A segment addressing questions about the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) in college athletics. However, these segments are supplementary to the primary discussion on the ruling.

Statistics and Context

The episode interlaces relevant statistics to provide context:

• Supreme Court Recusals: Since 2018, just 3% of appeals heard by the Supreme Court involved a justice recusing themselves, totaling 180 recusals by June 2016.

• Religious School Enrollment: In the 2021-2022 school year, 77% of K-12 private school students attended religiously affiliated schools, while charter schools comprised 7% of total U.S. student enrollment.

• Public Opinion: A 2021 Pew Research survey indicated that 54% of Americans support the enforcement of the separation of church and state, compared to 19% who oppose it.

Conclusion

This episode of Tangle provides an in-depth exploration of the Supreme Court's decision on religious charter schools, presenting balanced perspectives from both political spectrums and offering insightful analysis from host Isaac Saul. The discussion underscores the delicate balance between religious freedom and maintaining secular public education, a debate that is likely to continue evolving in the legal and political arenas.

For more insights and updates, subscribe to Tangle and visit readtangle.com.