Deadlocked SCOTUS leaves Oklahoma religious charter school ban intact

In a pivotal development on May 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 4–4 tie vote on the case involving the proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in Oklahoma. The deadlock leaves in place the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling that blocked the establishment of the taxpayer-funded religious charter school, citing constitutional violations related to the separation of church and state. The decision effectively affirms that publicly funded charter schools must remain secular, but does not establish a binding precedent at the federal level.

What Was the Case About?

The controversy centered on a 2023 decision by the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, which approved the charter for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School—an institution intended to be the first religious charter school funded by public tax dollars in the United States. The school, backed by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, aimed to provide faith-based virtual education under the state’s public school funding model.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond challenged the charter’s approval, arguing that it would compel citizens to subsidize religious instruction, thereby contravening both the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause and a similar provision in Oklahoma’s state constitution.

In June 2023, the Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with Drummond and ruled against the school’s creation. That decision was subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which took up the case amid heightened national attention on religious freedom and public education boundaries.

Why Did the Supreme Court Deadlock?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case due to prior affiliations with the University of Notre Dame, an institution connected to legal groups involved in defending the religious charter effort. Her absence left eight justices to deliberate, leading to a 4–4 split.

Such tie votes do not overturn lower court rulings but rather allow them to stand without issuing a precedent applicable nationwide. As a result, the Oklahoma court’s decision remains intact, prohibiting St. Isidore’s publicly funded launch.

The Wall Street Journal noted that while the deadlock prevents St. Isidore from proceeding, it does not foreclose the possibility of similar efforts in other states. Legal scholars and civil liberties groups widely expect additional litigation in jurisdictions where conservative administrations may attempt to advance faith-based charter schools under state education frameworks.

How Has the Public and Political Response Unfolded?

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, who had supported the school’s creation as an embodiment of “religious liberty and parental choice,” expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court outcome. He had previously praised the state board’s approval of St. Isidore as a “historic step” toward expanding educational access for faith-based families.

In contrast, civil rights and public education advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, welcomed the ruling as a reaffirmation of core constitutional principles. According to AP coverage, these groups argued that allowing public funds to finance religious teachings would have set a dangerous precedent and potentially triggered a wave of similar proposals across the U.S.

Attorney General Drummond stated that the deadlock vindicated his legal position and preserved “the fundamental promise that religion and government must remain separate in our public institutions.”

What Happens Next for Religious Charter Schools in the U.S.?

While this ruling ends the immediate dispute in Oklahoma, it leaves the broader constitutional question unresolved. The case has exposed deep legal and ideological divisions over how to interpret the First Amendment in modern education policy.

Religious groups advocating for greater inclusion in public education models are likely to continue challenging state laws in more favorable jurisdictions, especially in states with Republican-majority legislatures. Legal observers expect that, with a full bench participating, the Supreme Court may be forced to revisit the issue in the near future, potentially during its next term.

For now, the ruling maintains the prevailing legal interpretation that public charter schools must adhere to secular principles, consistent with traditional public school governance. It also reinforces the distinction between government funding for private religious schools—permitted in some voucher-based programs—and direct state operation of religious institutions.

Broader Legal and Educational Context

The case emerged amid a national trend of increasing efforts to blend religious instruction with public education dollars, especially in the wake of recent Supreme Court rulings expanding religious rights. In 2022, for example, the Court ruled in Carson v. Makin that states providing tuition assistance to private schools could not exclude religious institutions solely based on their faith-based character.

However, the St. Isidore case pushed this boundary further by seeking full public operation of a religious school—effectively treating it as a government charter school rather than a private entity participating in a voucher program.

Legal experts have warned that such proposals raise fundamental constitutional questions that go beyond individual school policies and strike at the heart of the Establishment Clause.

Public reaction remains sharply polarized. Supporters of the blocked charter believe the legal system is denying religious families educational equity. Opponents argue the ruling protects taxpayers from being forced to support religious indoctrination, especially in contexts where virtual public schooling is already controversial.