Washington – The conservative majority of the Supreme Court seemed balanced on Wednesday to govern that the schools administered by the Church have the right to operate as charters financed by the public.
If so, the decision could transform K-12 education and public education throughout the country.
Since the early 1990s, Charter schools have contributed in 47 states as a popular option for the public for parents and their children. They register 3.5 million children throughout the country.
When establishing these new schools, legislators and education officials agreed that they would be public and “non -sectarian”, or non -religious. They did so believing the prohibition of the constitution of an “establishment of religion” and the principle of separation of the Church status prohibited the use of tax money to finance churches or teach religion.
But the conservatives of the Court said Wednesday that they believe it is unfair and unconstitutional to reject the schools administered by the Church as taxes financed by taxes.
“They say they do not exclude us for our religion,” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh said.
Washington's lawyer, Greg Garre, said it would be “remarkable” and “amazing” that the court annuls the Congress and the laws of 47 states and governs that they must finance schools sponsored by the Church.
But that argument did not seem to influence the conservative majority of the court.
The case of the Charter schools heard on Wednesday highlighted the change of religion law that has been designed by the President of Justice John G. Roberts Jr. during the last decade.
In a series of opinions, he has put into account the opinion that denying public funds to religious groups violates the 1st amendment and its protection for the “free exercise” of religion. Their opinions said that it is discriminatory and incorrect to deny funds to churches or religious groups if others can obtain the same public benefits.
The conservatives of the Court, all of which were raised as Catholics, track the history of the opposition to the “sectarian” schools to the anti -Catholic “intolerance” of the nineteenth century.
Denial of religion -based public financing “is hateful for our Constitution and cannot endure,” Roberts wrote in 2017. Such discrimination violates the protection of the first amendment for the “free exercise” of religion, he said.
That case involved a Lutheran Church in Missouri who sought a state subsidy to improve the recreation patio for its nursery center. In subsequent decisions, the court applied this principle to give parents the right to obtain subsidies or state coupons to send their children to religious schools.
Now the court sounded ready to apply that principle throughout the country, opening the door to the churches to sponsor Charter schools financed by the State that could teach religion.
On Wednesday, the Court faced the high -risk clash on religious schools in a case of Oklahoma. It will determine not only if states can allow Charter schools to be administered by the Church to use public funds, but if they must authorize them.
The three liberals of the court were skeptical when converting public charter schools into a program that includes private religious schools.
“The distinctive seal of public education is that taxpayers are paying it,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor said. And the precedents of the Court say that tax money should not be used to teach religion, he said.
But none of the conservative judges agreed.
Two years ago, the Catholic bishops of Tulsa and Oklahoma City formed a private non -profit corporation to establish the first religious autonomous school of the nation. They said that St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School would operate “like a Catholic school”, but would be open to all.
But Oklahoma Atty. General Gentner Drummond said public financing for the Catholic School would violate state and federal laws in Charter schools, as well as the constitution of the State and the constitution of the United States.
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma agreed last year and blocked the authorization of the new Autonomous School. “The Constitution of Oklahoma prohibits the State from using public money for the benefit or support of any religious institution,” state judges said in a decision of 6-2.
The alliance that defends La Libertad, a Christian legal group, appealed before the Supreme Court, citing the opinions of the Court written by the President of the Supreme Court.
They said that the state court ruling against the new Autonomous School of Catholic Administration “raises a serious threat to fundamental freedoms.” “Darga religious schools and religious parents who wish to send their children to schools that align with their values,” they wrote. “The free exercise clause firmly rebukes such anti -religious discrimination.”
Only eight judges will decide the case of the Oklahoma Charter School Board throughout the state against Drummond.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a friend of Notre Dame's Law, Nicole Garnett, who has been a leading defender of religious autonomous schools. The two met when they were employees of the law in the Supreme Court in 1998. Barrett was an employee of Judge Antonin Scalia, while Garnett worked for Judge Clarence Thomas. Subsequently, they taught for decades at the Law Faculty of Notre Dame.
In January, when the court said that he would listen to the case of the Oklahoma Autonomous School, the order also said that Barrett “did not participate” in the decision.
But the other conservative judges of the Court heard Wednesday's argument. In addition to Roberts, they include Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. In their questions, the five sounded as if they would govern in favor of the Catholic Autonomous School.
The court will issue a decision at the end of June.
