The U.S. Supreme Court found itself tied in a constitutional tug-of-war, issuing a 4-4 split that effectively slammed the brakes on what could’ve been a historic first: a taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma.
The case centered around the proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a project backed by Oklahoma’s Catholic Archdiocese and Diocese of Tulsa. Their vision? A full K-12 online curriculum steeped in Catholic teaching, funded by public dollars. But with one justice, Amy Coney Barrett, stepping aside—reportedly due to past ties to a university representing the school’s organizers—the case lost its ninth voice. And in the evenly split Supreme Court, a tie means the last court ruling holds. In this instance, that meant a firm “no” from Oklahoma’s own high court.
The state justices had drawn a hard line, declaring that St. Isidore would essentially act as a government arm—blurring the boundary between church and state. By forcing students into religious instruction and channeling public funds into faith-based programs, the court ruled, the school crossed a constitutional red line.
Critics of the plan, many of them staunch advocates for the separation of church and state, saw the Supreme Court’s inaction as a quiet but significant win. “A resounding victory,” Oklahoma’s Attorney General called it. On the other side, proponents of religious charter schools didn’t mince words either—voicing frustration, but also signaling the fight isn’t over. They argue the government is discriminating against religious groups by excluding them from public education initiatives, and they’re betting the full nine-justice Court will eventually take the case.
The legal tension here is as old as the Constitution itself: the Establishment Clause versus the Free Exercise Clause. One prohibits government-sponsored religion, the other guarantees the right to practice it. And during oral arguments, it was clear the justices were split not just by ideology, but by legal interpretation. Chief Justice John Roberts, usually a bellwether in such debates, seemed torn—questioning how deeply the government would have to entangle itself in the day-to-day life of a religious charter school.
The controversy struck a deeper nerve because it signaled a potential shift. In recent years, the Court has leaned hard in favor of religious liberty, greenlighting public aid to religious entities in a string of landmark cases—from playground resurfacing funds to private school tax credits. That’s why many were caught off guard when the Court didn’t break in favor of St. Isidore.
Backers of the school argue they’re not trying to make the state religious—they just want a seat at the public education table without being excluded for their faith. Opponents argue just as fiercely that religious charter schools would blur vital constitutional lines and risk entrenching discriminatory practices under the guise of religious liberty.
The Oklahoma school board had given St. Isidore the green light in a narrow 3-2 vote. But that was short-lived. Last year, the state’s top court blocked the school outright, declaring its model incompatible with the constitutional firewall that’s supposed to separate church from state.
The long legal battle may have ended—for now—with a tie. But with six conservatives still dominating the Court, and with Barrett’s eventual return to the bench on similar cases all but guaranteed, the broader war over religious charter schools is likely far from over.
And so, the country’s first taxpayer-funded religious school remains an idea on paper—paused, but not erased.
