Oklahoma’s Catholic charter school case draws attention as Maine ruling highlights limits on religious institutions accepting state money
Thank you for being here, please ❤️ (below) if you enjoyed this piece, it really helps others find it.
By Michael D. Peabody, Esq.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a case that could redefine the boundaries of religious participation in public education. At issue is whether Oklahoma may approve and fund a Catholic charter school—St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School—through its statewide charter system without violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
The case arrives at the Court just three years after its 2022 decision in Carson v. Makin, which struck down Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from its tuition program. But while Carson expanded access to public funds for religious institutions, recent developments in Maine illustrate the legal and operational complications that follow when religious schools accept those funds—and the limitations they may face under state nondiscrimination laws.
In the Oklahoma case, St. Isidore and the state’s charter school board argue that excluding religious schools from charter eligibility is unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, however, contends that a publicly funded religious charter school amounts to state sponsorship of religion, violating both the Establishment Clause and provisions of Oklahoma’s constitution.
As the Court considers the case, religious schools around the country are also watching what happened in Maine. After the Carson decision opened the door for sectarian schools to receive public tuition funds, Bangor Christian School—the very type of school the ruling was meant to benefit—ultimately declined the money. The school cited concerns about the conditions tied to public funding, especially requirements under Maine’s Human Rights Act (MHRA) that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.
In 2024, a group including the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, St. Dominic Academy, and several parents filed suit against the state of Maine, challenging the MHRA\’s applicability to religious schools. The plaintiffs argued that Maine had modified its nondiscrimination laws specifically to block religious schools from joining the public funding program, pointing to the 2021 addition of gender identity as a protected class and narrowing of religious exemptions.
However, in an August 2024 decision, U.S. District Court Judge John Woodcock denied a motion for a preliminary injunction. In his ruling, he acknowledged the plaintiffs’ concerns about the tension between religious doctrine and state policy, writing: “The Plaintiffs may well view the breadth of the state’s antidiscrimination laws as the triumph of the tenets of a state secular religion… However… the public also has a strong interest in the state being able to effectively combat discrimination.” He concluded that while the plaintiffs may teach and practice their religion, they cannot “require the state to subsidize their religious teachings if they conflict with state antidiscrimination law”.
This presents a cautionary example for religious institutions like St. Isidore. While legal victories such as Carson may expand eligibility for public funds, those funds come with conditions. For schools with a mission to evangelize or adhere to doctrines that may conflict with public policy, on matters ranging from theology to sexuality, and accepting such funding can constrain their ability to operate according to their beliefs.
Religious schools could face not only legal and administrative trade-offs, but also profound questions of identity and mission when considering public funding. The acceptance of government money—whether through vouchers, charter status, or tax-credit schemes—inevitably invites regulation. Even well-intended oversight, it argues, can lead to a dilution of religious autonomy over time, as schools are compelled to align more closely with state standards in order to remain eligible for support.
This concern becomes especially acute for schools with an evangelistic outlook. The core purpose of such institutions is not simply to educate within a moral or religious tradition, but to actively cultivate personal religious conviction. Government partnerships may make it difficult to uphold such objectives without compromise. Religious schools might gradually shift toward more cultural expressions of religion—less overt, less theologically assertive—in order to avoid conflict with secular oversight. What begins as a financial opportunity can become a long-term shift in mission.
Thus, the real risk may not be immediate legal conflict, but incremental transformation. The danger lies in the possibility that religious schools “may retain the form but lose the power” of their faith identity. Faith-based institutions must therefore assess whether participation in publicly funded programs aligns not only with legal feasibility but also with spiritual fidelity. For schools rooted in evangelistic purpose, that tension may be too great to ignore.
The Court appeared divided during the Oklahoma arguments, with the more conservative justices pressing whether excluding religious schools from public programs amounts to discrimination, and the liberal justices questioning whether a religious charter school can truly be treated as a private actor while funded and regulated by the state.
A ruling in the Oklahoma case is expected by June 2025. in the Supreme Court is expected by the end of the Court’s term in June.