Tangle - The Supreme Court's religious charter school ruling.

Episode Date: May 28, 2025

On Thursday, the Supreme Court blocked a religious online charter school from obtaining public funding from the state of Oklahoma. In a 4–4 decision that Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from, the court affirmed the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling that prevented St. Isidore of Seville — a Catholic online-only charter school in Oklahoma City — from receiving public funds. The court did not disclose how the justices voted in the case, only releasing a one-sentence opinion: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What do you think of the Supreme Court’s ruling? Let us know!Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What is Happy Travels? It's exploring the world your way and creating cherished memories. With a sun vacation, cruise, flight, or hotel deal. That's by experts who have been where you are now and have gone where you want to go. Booking is easy with vacations for every traveler. Organized by destination, travel provider, and more.

Find your getaway. Contact a travel expert or visit. SellerVacations.com. ["Tangle"] From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. ["Tangle"] is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul.

Today is Wednesday, May 28th. We are covering a recent Supreme Court ruling on religious charter schools. It's the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v Drummond. Very interesting case, one with some pretty big implications for the separation of church and state. We're gonna break down exactly what happened,

which was a pretty rare four-four split ruling with Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself. And then I'm going to share my take. I also want to give you a heads up that on Friday, we are going to be releasing a piece from me that has been quite difficult to write. I've been kind of referencing it and talking about it for a long time. It's kind of my personal story of how I came to be a Zionist and why the conflict in Israel is making me struggle with calling myself one today. I've had a hard time processing and getting this piece down,

but I think it's in a place where it's basically ready to share. So I'm excited to do that. All right, with that, I'm gonna send it over to John for today's main story, and I'll be back for my take. Thanks Isaac, and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today.

First up, a federal judge struck down President Donald Trump's executive order against the law firm Wilmer Hale for infringing on the constitutional freedoms of an independent judiciary. Separately, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow expedited deportations of migrants to countries other than their own. The request follows a federal judge's order that migrants must be allowed a meaningful opportunity to object their deportation. 2. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that Mohammed Sinwar, the

leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, was killed in an airstrike last week. Number three, the Trump administration reportedly ordered United States embassies and consular sections to pause new scheduling interviews for student visa applicants as it weighs a policy to require all foreign students applying to study in the US to undergo social media vetting Number four national public radio sued the Trump administration over its executive order ending public broadcasting funding and Number five health secretary Robert F Kennedy jr. Announced the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will no longer recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant women and healthy children. Coming on the air because the Supreme Court has just released a major decision concerning

government funding of religious charter schools. the ruling could reshape how taxpayer money is now used to fund education across the U.S. On Thursday, the Supreme Court blocked a religious online charter school from obtaining public funding from the state of Oklahoma. In a 4-4 decision that Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from, the court affirmed the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling that prevented St. Isidore of Seville, a Catholic online-only charter school in Oklahoma City, from receiving public funds. The court did not disclose how the justices voted in the case, only releasing a one-sentence

opinion. The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court. For context, in 2023, the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa founded St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. The school takes its name from the patron saint of the internet and teaches a Catholic curriculum for grades K-12. Oklahoma's charter school board approved St. Isidore's application for public funding in 2023, but Oklahoma Attorney General Gettner Drummond challenged the approval,

arguing it would provide precedent for Muslim schools to receive funding and destabilize the national charter school system. The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with Drummond, finding that publicly funding an explicitly religious school violates the state's constitution. The state charter board petitioned the case to the Supreme Court in October 2024, and the Court agreed to hear Oklahoma's statewide Charter School Board versus Drummond in January. If the Supreme Court had sided with the Board, St. Isidore would have been the first publicly funded religious charter school in the country. Instead, the deadlocked decision does not set precedent one way or the other.

It only affirms the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision to not publicly fund religious charter schools within the other. It only affirms the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision to not publicly fund religious charter schools within the state. Justice Barrett did not state why she recused herself, as is typical for Supreme Court justices. However, she is close friends with an attorney who provided counsel to St. Isidore, and the school had been advised by a religious liberty clinic at Notre Dame's law school where Barrett taught. Many court watchers expected the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Charter Board, as the Court had ruled in favor of religious schools receiving public funding in three separate instances in the last decade.

A 2017 case allowing a church preschool to access Missouri state funds to resurface its playground, a 2020 case permitting religious schools to participate in a Montana tax credit program, and a 2022 case affirming Maine students could use vouchers at religious institutions. However, during oral arguments on April 30, Chief Justice John Roberts differentiated those cases by saying, the prior three involved fairly discrete state involvement, while Drummond provided much more comprehensive involvement. Proponents of religious charter schools were optimistic they could succeed with a different challenge. While the Supreme Court's order is disappointing for educational freedom, the 4-4 decision does not set precedent, allowing the court to revisit the issue in the future,

James A. Campbell, a lawyer with the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom, said. Today, we'll dive into what the left and the right are saying about Drummond, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. What is Happy Travels? It's exploring the world your way and creating cherished memories with a sun vacation, cruise, flight or hotel deal. That's by experts who have been where you are now and have gone where you want to go. Booking is easy with vacations for every traveler, organized by destination, travel provider, and more. Find your getaway. Contact

a travel expert or visit SteadLockVacations.com. All right. First, let's start with some agreement. Commentators on both sides say the decision is somewhat surprising given the court's past rulings on related issues. However, many also suggest that the court is likely to rule for religious charter schools if it hears a similar case with a full bench in the future. Alright, let's go to what the left is saying. The left is pleasantly surprised by the decision, though many caution that the broader issue

raised by the case is not resolved. Some suggest that religious charter schools will soon bring another challenge to the court. Others argue that allowing public funding for religious schools would harm all parties involved. In Slate, Mark Joseph Stern wrote, separation of church and state scored a surprise reprieve at the Supreme Court. At oral arguments in April, it was clear that at least four conservative justices believed that St. Isidore had a right under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause to secure

public funding. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh sounded convinced that the exclusion of religious schools from the charter system amounted to an unconstitutional discrimination against religion, Stern said. But Chief Justice John Roberts sounded a tad wobbly during arguments, asking a handful of questions that indicated discomfort with the breadth of St. Isidore's constitutional claims. It now appears that Roberts did, indeed, defect from the conservative bloc, siding with the

three liberals. The big question now is whether Barrett will share his hesitation in the future when the next religious charter comes before the court. The network of Christian lawyers who manufactured this case will have little trouble persuading another state to adopt their experiment, and can surely avoid involvement by any of Barrett's friends next time, Stern wrote. For the time being, however, Thursday's decision is as big a victory as anyone can expect from this court for the separation of church and state.

The conservative majority has been marching ineluctably toward a future in which there is no barrier between the government and religion, where in fact the Constitution requires the constant intermingling of the two. In Vox, Ian Milheiser called the decision a rare setback for the religious right. At oral arguments in Oklahoma, this case appeared likely to be the latest in a series of Supreme Court decisions mandating government funding for religious education. Most notably in Carson v. Macon in 2022, the court held that states that offer private school tuition vouchers must allow those vouchers to be used to pay tuition at religious schools,"

Milheiser said. The court held that states that offer private school tuition vouchers must allow those vouchers to be used to pay for tuition at religious schools, Milheiser said. Though Thursday's non-decision in Oklahoma means that this long-standing regime guaranteeing public schools remain secular institutions is still in effect, it is far from clear whether this regime will last. While Carson held that states that fund private education must include religious schools in that funding, charter schools are considered public under both Oklahoma and federal law.

Both federal law and the laws of the 46 states also require charter schools to be non-religious, Milheiser wrote. However, it is likely that proponents of religious charter schools will simply try again to create such a school, this time without doing so in a way that causes Barrett to recuse. If Barrett is present for those future arguments and applies similar reasoning to the decision she joined in Carson, she could easily be the fifth vote for religious charter schools. In U.S. News and World Report, Eli Fetterman argued religious charter schools undermine religious freedom.

Supporters of the Oklahoma School, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, mistakenly think religious charter schools would be a win for faith. But in truth, turning Sunday schools into public schools risks endangering religious freedom itself. Those with religious beliefs who want to educate their children in ways inconsistent with state requirements could be harmed the most, Fetterman said. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause protects religious institutions by limiting the government's involvement in and control over religious education.

If faith groups begin running state-funded charter schools, they invite government oversight and risk losing the independence that allows them to stay true to their mission and values. This ongoing battle reveals why the Supreme Court's decision matters. If religious schools enter the public charter system, they will face even more direct state pressure to conform to secular standards. And once a charter school is established with public funds, disentangling it from state oversight to return to private support can disrupt the lives of students, teachers, and communities that rely on those schools," Federman wrote.

Meanwhile, under most state regulations, not all charter schools get approved. Public authorities deciding whether religious schools qualify risks unconstitutional government preference for one religion over others. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. Many on the right are frustrated by the outcome, but say it's only a temporary setback. Some suggest the court will rule for religious charter schools the next opportunity against. Others criticize Justice Barrett for her decision to recuse herself. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote, a religious charter school falls short at

the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's big religious liberty case ended with a whimper Thursday, and what a pity. A ruling in favor of St. Isidore, a proposed Catholic charter school in Oklahoma, could have bolstered religious freedom and educational opportunities. Instead, the court split 4-4, the board said. How did the Roberts Court's remarkable run on religious liberty end here? The deadlock was possible because Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the

Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board vs. Drummond. She didn't explain why, as is common practice at the court. Yet Justice Barrett's absence and the anticlimactic outcome underscore the price of recusal for parties to a case. As Justice Antonin Scalia once pointed out, a party appealing to the Supreme Court needs five votes to overturn the ruling below, meaning a recusal is effectively the same as a vote to affirm the board rope. The lack of a decision means that the faithful in Oklahoma will be denied an opportunity

to attend St. Isidore, but it isn't the end of the road for free exercise of religion and school choice in an education landscape that's rapidly changing. Similar cases could arise in other states, and legislatures now have a window to adjust their charter laws to be more or less like Oklahoma's. In the National Catholic Register, Andrea M. Pachati-Behr said it's only a matter of time before the court hears a similar case. Four of the court's originalists, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, appeared to support St. Isidore's certification as a charter school.

They appreciated that because charter schools are privately created and privately controlled, they are not the government, and nor are they engaged in state action. They also appreciated that excluding religious schools like St. Isidore's from participating in the state's charter school program is a form of religious discrimination. It's likely that Justice Barrett would agree," Pachati-Barrett wrote. By contrast, the court's three progressives, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Katanji Brown Jackson, were more than satisfied with excluding St. Isidore's. If Roberts did vote against St. Isidore's request for fair treatment, that is a great

disappointment, particularly because he was the author of two recent school choice cases in which the court held that excluding religious schools was deemed unconstitutional, Pachati Baer said. It's only a matter of time before a case questioning the constitutionality of excluding religious schools from charter school programs is before the High Court once again. When that time comes, let's hope that Justice Barrett is on the bench and Chief Justice Roberts allows fairness and religious freedom to win the day. In National Review, Carrie Campbell Severino explored the consequences of unnecessary recusals.

The reasons for Barrett's recusal are not certain, but are presumed to stem from her friendship with Professor Nicole Garnett at Notre Dame Law School. Garnett has been supportive of St. Isidore, but is neither a counsel nor a party in the case. Interestingly enough, in Carson v. Bacon in 2022, a case dealing with similar issues, she signed an amicus brief and there were no recusals, nor should there have been," Severino wrote. Even if she were an advocate in Oklahoma's statewide charter school board versus Drummond, it should not have made a difference.

Recusal because a friend has some connection to the case, but is not a party, has never been the practice. An enormous amount of time, money, and effort were spent on this case, only to have it end without resolution. No clarity has been provided for other states, or for that matter Oklahoma itself. The school is being deprived of its constitutional rights and cannot now vindicate them in court. Going beyond her duty to recuse herself could have pernicious long-term consequences if other justices were to do the same," Severino wrote.

As the court itself has noted in its Code of conduct, 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, which brings us to my take. So at first blush, this feels like one of the most significant recusals by a Supreme Court justice in recent memory. Liberal commentators were ready to see a loss on this case and for the separation of church and state to take a major blow. Instead, they got a surprise victory.

That win was narrow, applying just to Oklahoma and maybe short-lived as a new similar challenge will almost certainly pop up, but at the very least, it means a similar future case will be no slam dunk. And we know that whoever brings it will need similar future case will be no slam dunk. And we know that whoever brings it will need to win over Amy Coney Barrett. For this case, as with most court cases, it's useful to apply my two-part analysis, a view

on the legal arguments and my perspective on the practical outcome of the ruling. On the legal merits of the case, I'll say upfront that I thought the Oklahoma Supreme Court was right to invalidate St. Isidore's contract with the state. Oklahoma law requires charter schools to be non-religious. St. Isidore was seeking a public school structure and government funding to teach an explicitly Catholic curriculum, which students were going to be mandated to participate in. The state supreme court ruled that the school was going to provide public education as a surrogate of the state, which means it would have been a public entity that did not have any right to the free exercise of religion. This all makes plain sense to me, but of course it's not quite so straightforward or it wouldn't be before the supreme court.

Representatives for St. Isidore argued that charter schools are not state actors. Instead, they are privately operated schools that are given government contracts to provide publicly funded education. That view does have some precedent to support it. And the justices on the Supreme Court have been very friendly to groups arguing that religious institutions are entitled to the same educational funds that are available to secular recipients. The school also argued that none of the factors

the court normally considers to determine if a private entity is a state actor, such as being intertwined with a government or performing an exclusively public function, are satisfied here. After reading the details of these arguments, my overwhelming feeling is that St. Isidore is trying to blur the lines on public and private education,

trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want government funding, but they also want to be able to teach whatever they want and how they want. In the most straightforward sense, I find this unacceptable. If my tax dollars are going to fund your institution, then I should get a say in how it runs. My money goes to public schools and I get to vote for people who implement educational programming or join the school board. My money goes to the military and I get to vote for the president who will choose its leaders. My money goes to a charter school and they get to teach

whatever religion they want without any input from me. I don't think that's right. Even perhaps especially as a person of faith, I want church and state to remain separate. I find its value to the government and the public obvious, but the principle also helps religious institutions too. Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, who is widely considered the first proponent of this separation, understood its value from the beginning. As far back as 1644, he was arguing that mixing church

and state corrupts the church. And when you mixed religion and politics, you always got politics. I believe these arguments have stood the test of time. Specific to the case at hand, Eli Fetterman, under what the left is saying, summed it up better than I could. He said, quote, The First Amendment's Establishment Clause protects religious institutions by limiting the government's involvement in and control over religious education. If faith groups begin running state-funded charter schools, they invite government oversight

and risk losing the independence that allows them to stay true to their mission and values. As for the practical impact, well, I think it will be small and temporary. I suspect that given the makeup of this court and the way they have ruled in similar cases, another state will bring a similar challenge and probably prevail with Justice Barrett's vote. But again, if that does happen, it will be a mistake. It will be bad for the charter schools and religious institutions in the long term to subject themselves to government oversight of this kind. And it will be unfair to the taxpayers who should not be forced to fund schools and institutions

that are teaching religious doctrine. So for now, I'm happy to see Barrett's recusal led to Oklahoma winning this case, but I'm apprehensive about how narrow and temporary that victory really is. We'll be right back after this quick break. What is happy travels? It's exploring the world your way We'll be right back after this quick break. to go. Booking is easy with vacations for every traveler organized by destination, travel provider and more. Find your getaway, contact a travel expert or visit. Alright, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from Lark in Iowa City, Iowa, who said, I would like to read your thoughts

on how name, image and likeness, NIL, is or will impact athletics. Current money allocations largely go to males and intertwining of the reallocation elimination of education department with its role in Title IX, President Trump's policies and his ruling on NIL money not under Title IX. Okay, so complex question. The way that NIL impacts college athletics in and of itself is complicated

and it's going to produce a variety of different opinions. So when you add in the potential of the government changing the program, it gets vastly more complicated. But to back up here for a moment, NIL deals with how college athletes are profiting off their name, image, and likeness without being paid directly by colleges. Proponents see it as a way to compensate athletes who otherwise wouldn't receive any money from the revenue they generate for their universities, conferences, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA. Opponents of NIL say that it threatens the very nature of the student-athlete relationship, benefits the top tier programs that can allow

the athlete to make more money, and potentially creates a Title IX issue by generating greater revenue for male athletes. President Trump is attempting to shutter the Department of Education, which enforces Title IX and proposed a commission to reform NIL deals at the NCAA. Trump seems generally opposed to NIL deals. However, that commission has been paused as Senator Ted Cruz, the Republican from Texas, works on passing legislation to regulate the practice. Cruz is generally in favor. I'll be straightforward that our staff has a variety of different opinions on NIL, but we all generally agree that athletes should receive some kind of compensation for creating an industry that profits immensely off their skills.

We also agree that NIL has paved the way for unethical recruiting practices and weakened intercollegiate competition. As for what happens next, it seems like the changes the government is considering are still pretty speculative. Reading the tea leaves, the most likely change is the one that's already occurring. Less power for the NCAA and individual schools and more power for conferences.

All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm gonna send it back to John for the rest of today's podcast and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your Under the Radar story for today, folks.

After multiple years of enlistment shortfalls, the U.S. military spent more than $6 billion over the past three years to recruit and retain service members. In particular, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines have rolled out new programs and increased the number of recruiters while creating new financial incentives for soldiers to stay in the armed forces. The Navy, which has had some of the largest enlistment and retention gaps, outspent all other branches and placed an emphasis on filling its at-sea jobs. The investments appear to have been successful, as all branches but the Navy met their recruitment targets last year and are all expected to do so this year.

The Associated Press has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright, next up is our numbers section. The percentage of appeals heard by the Supreme Court since 2018 in which a justice recused themselves is 3 percent, according to a 2023 Bloomberg Law analysis. The number of times a Supreme Court justice recused themselves, either when deciding whether or not to hear a case or during rulings in the court's term ending in June 2016, was 180, according to Fix the Court. The number of cases in which Justice Elena Kagan recused herself during that term, most often due to her previous work as Solicitor General, was 98. The number of cases in which Justice Samuel Alito recused himself during that term, most

often due to stock ownership, was 31. The total number of Catholic elementary and secondary schools in the United States in the 2000-2001 school year was 8,000. The total number of schools in the secondary schools in the United States in the 2000-2001 school year was 8,146. The total number of Catholic elementary school and secondary schools in the United States in the 2022-2023 school year was 5,920. The percentage of K-12 private school students who attended a religiously affiliated school

in the 2021-2022 school year was 77% according to Pew Research. Charter school enrollment as a percentage of total U.S. student enrollment in the 2021-2022 school year was 7%. And the percentage of Americans who said the U government should and should not enforce the separation of church and state, respectively, is 54% and 19% according to a 2021 Pew Research survey. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. Rose Torget was appalled to learn that when a company moves out of a tenant space, the furniture often ends up in a landfill.

In response, she founded an organization called Anu with the goal of extending office furniture life. Anu works to repurpose, resell, and recycle corporate surplus furniture that otherwise would have gone to waste by finding charities, nonprofits, and public agencies in need. Anu says it has worked with over 2, 2000 recipient organizations in 20 countries and saved 8000 tons of what would be waste in the past 10 years. Good News Network has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright everybody that is it for today's episode.

As always if you'd like to support our work please go to REETANGLE.com where you can set up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow for Isaac and the rest of the crew. This is John Law signing off. Have a great day y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul and our

executive producer is John Lull. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will K. Back and associate editors Hunter Kaspersen, Audrey Morehead, Bailey Saul, Lindsay Knuth, and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Dyett75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com. What is happy travels? It's exploring the world your way and creating cherished memories with a sun vacation, cruise, flight or hotel deal. That's by experts who have been where you are now and have gone where you want to go.

Booking is easy with vacations for every traveler. Organized by destination, travel provider and more. Find your getaway. Contact a travel expert or visit StellaVacations.com