In what may mark a dramatic reconfiguration of the boundary between church and state, the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to deliver a trio of rulings that could redefine how religion operates in America’s public institutions. With arguments heard and decisions looming by the end of June, the court’s conservative majority seems inclined to push the pendulum decisively toward broader religious liberties—even at the expense of long-standing secular principles.
These cases, which together cut across the public education system, state tax policy, and LGBTQ-inclusive curricula, may crystallize a major legal shift: a First Amendment framework where the free exercise of religion increasingly eclipses the establishment clause meant to keep government and faith apart.
At the heart of the highest-profile dispute is a bold proposal from two Catholic dioceses: to launch the country’s first religious charter school funded by taxpayer dollars. The school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, was blocked by Oklahoma’s Supreme Court for violating the establishment clause. Charter schools are public by definition under Oklahoma law, and the court ruled this would effectively make the state a sponsor of religious education.
But St. Isidore’s backers argue that denying the school based on its faith affiliation amounts to religious discrimination, violating the free exercise clause. During oral arguments, several justices appeared receptive to that view, focusing on parental choice rather than governmental entanglement.
“Parents are choosing with open eyes,” said U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer during the hearing, dismissing concerns that public money would fuel religious indoctrination. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wasn’t convinced, pushing back with pointed questions about where the constitutional line gets drawn.
This case is part of a broader legal current. In recent years, the court has increasingly treated religious institutions not as entities to be kept at arm’s length by government funding, but as claimants to equal access. From Maine’s tuition aid program to Montana’s tax credits for private religious schools, a new constitutional interpretation has emerged—one where denying public funds to religious groups is seen as discriminatory.
Two other pending cases reinforce the trend.
One pits Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland against a school district policy that bars students from opting out of storybook readings featuring LGBTQ characters. The parents argue the mandate infringes on their religious beliefs, while the court’s liberal justices voiced concern that allowing such exemptions might lead to opt-outs on virtually any moral grounds—evolution, gender roles, even interracial marriage.
The third case, out of Wisconsin, could exempt a Catholic diocese’s charitable arm from paying unemployment insurance taxes. State law reserves exemptions for organizations “operated primarily for religious purposes,” but courts ruled the diocese’s programs were charitable and secular in nature. The justices, however, showed openness to the idea that religious motivation should weigh more heavily in determining eligibility for exemptions.
Legal scholars watching this trio of cases say they could prove momentous. University of Illinois Chicago professor Steve Schwinn believes the outcomes may further cement a constitutional environment where religion is not merely protected but embedded within the machinery of public life.
“These decisions could dramatically expand religious involvement in public programs,” Schwinn warned.
Others, like Notre Dame’s Richard Garnett, frame the shift as long overdue. “For too long, the Constitution was interpreted as forcing religion out of public view,” Garnett said. “That’s not cooperation—that’s exclusion.”
But even among advocates of broader religious freedoms, there is caution. If the rulings are too sweeping, warns St. Thomas law professor Thomas Berg, they could disturb the delicate balance that protects religious exercise while keeping the state from enforcing orthodoxy.
“Narrow decisions could strengthen religious rights without unraveling civil principles,” Berg said. “But broad, blunt rulings? Those could break things.”
With America’s cultural battles playing out in classrooms, courts, and government agencies, the Supreme Court is about to redraw the rulebook—again. Whether it restores balance or tips the scale entirely, the coming decisions promise a lasting imprint on where, and how, faith fits in the public square.
