SCOTUS

Will Supreme Court Allow Nation’s First Religious Charter School?

Just in time for Catholic Schools Week, the United States Supreme Court has announced plans to review the constitutionality of a new publicly funded Catholic charter school in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma City’s “Saint Isidore of Seville” was supposed to open back in 2023, but a lawsuit has stalled its anticipated opening.

Isidore of Seville, who died in 686 A.D., has been referred to as “the last scholar of the ancient world.” In fact, back in 1997, Pope John Paull II designated Isidore as the patron saint of the internet, an acknowledgement of his significant contributions to communicating vast amounts of knowledge.

But supporters of what would be the nation’s first Christian charter school have faced resistance, including push back from inside the otherwise conservative Oklahoma government.

Gentner Drummond, the Sooner State’s attorney general, has opposed the formation of the institution, suggesting it violates the state constitution.

“The approval of any publicly funded religious school is contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interest of taxpayers,” Drummond has warned. 

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has strongly disagreed, suggesting that to prohibit the publicly funded charter school sends a chilling and discriminatory message.

“I’m glad the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing the St. Isidore case,” he wrote last week.

“This stands to be one of the most significant religious and education freedom decisions in our lifetime. I believe our nation’s highest court will agree that denying St. Isidore’s charter based solely on its religious affiliation is flat-out unconstitutional. We’ve seen ugly religious intolerance from opponents of the education freedom movement, but I look forward to seeing our religious liberties protected both in Oklahoma and across the country.”

In crafting the school’s mission statement, organizers made clear that being a Catholic isn’t a prerequisite for admission.

Here’s St. Isidore’s founding aim:

Guided by our Catholic faith, [St. Isidore] serves God and families by spiritually and academically preparing students, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, for lives of intellectual excellence, holiness, and service to others with the ultimate goal of eternal salvation by bringing quality, Catholic education to all parts of Oklahoma. 

Focus on the Family has historically championed the belief that mothers and fathers should be allowed to spend their educational tax dollars as they so wish. Whether at a faith-based school or some other private institution, no parent should be forced to fund the increasingly woke propaganda that’s masquerading these days as age-appropriate public-school curriculum.

We also believe religious organizations should be given the same rights and privileges as any other secular group.

Oklahoma’s Supreme Court voted 7-1 last year to block the school’s opening, agreeing in large part with AG Drummond’s legal reasoning.

Justice Dana Kuehn offered the lone dissent.

“Contracting with a private entity that has religious affiliations, by itself, does not establish a state religion, nor does it favor one religion over another,” Kuehn wrote.

Alliance Defending Freedom’s Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell cheered the High Court’s decision to accept the case.

“Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer,” Campbell wrote. “There’s great irony in state officials who claim to be in favor of religious liberty discriminating against St. Isidore because of its Catholic beliefs.”

He added, “The U.S. Constitution protects St. Isidore’s freedom to operate according to its faith … We’re pleased the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this case, which is of the utmost import to families and children in Oklahoma and throughout the country.”

Back in 2022, the High Court ruled that Maine’s attempt to exclude religious schools from its tuition-assistance program violated the First Amendment. 

Given the Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments this winter or spring, we can expect a decision by summer.

Image from Shutterstock.

Key Takeaways from Supreme Court Case on ‘Transgender’ Interventions

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a historic case on December 4 about a Tennessee law protecting minors from experimental and damaging “transgender” medical interventions – drugs, hormones and surgery.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and ACLU Staff Attorney Chase Strangio, a woman who identifies as a man, argued that the law, Senate Bill 1, should be struck down. Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice argued in favor of protecting children.

Here’s a brief synopsis of the case, followed by some reactions from conservatives about the oral arguments.

Tennessee’s measure prohibits medical procedures “enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.” The interventions would still be available to a child with a real medical issue such as precocious puberty, when sexual development begins at a very young age.

The case gained national attention, as the outcome could affect 23 states that have shielded children from these destructive procedures, along with 17 lawsuits fighting these protections. The day before the case was presented, people camped outside the Supreme Court to get seats. Groups supporting and opposing the law held separate rallies outside the court before oral arguments took place.

The ACLU and other LGBT activist groups filed a lawsuit against SB 1 on behalf of minors with sexual identity confusion and their parents. The Biden administration’s Department of Justice also sued to block the law, and the court combined the suits into one case.

The main question before the Court was whether or not the law is constitutional. Proponents of transgender medical interventions arguing that SB 1 discriminated on the basis of sex, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Justices also asked questions about the effectiveness of transgender medical procedures, whether transgenderism is immutable, and whether the state has an interest in helping children “appreciate their sex.”

Pro-child activist Robby Starbuck, producer of the documentary The War on Children, noted that Justice Alito “dismantled the government’s argument that Tennessee’s ban on trans drugs and procedures for kids is sex based discrimination via immutable characteristics.” Strangio agreed that some with sexual identity confusion do revert to their birth sex.

James Lynch commented in National Review on Justice Samuel Alito’s questioning of Prelogar’s petition to the court where she said there was “overwhelming evidence” that these medical interventions help children. He wrote that Alito “tore into” the solicitor general for this false statement, adding that the justice read evidence to the contrary:

Alito cited extensive research from European countries showing otherwise, including a study from a Swedish medical board that concluded the risks of transgender treatments likely outweigh purported benefits. Alito also referred to the United Kingdom’s “Cass Review,” which found little evidence to further the viewpoint that the benefits of transgender treatment are greater than the risks.

Similarly, pro-child activist Matt Walsh noted that Alito pointed to “The Cass Review,” a thorough examination of the available literature on these harmful procedures, noting they “don’t actually prevent suicide.”

Transgender-identified activists often claim that all of us – and parents, especially – must affirm children in their sexual identity confusion – or they will die. But Strangio admitted in the exchange, “Completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare.”

Several commentators focused on Justice Sonja Sotomayor’s cavalier dismissal of the extreme risks and harms to children’s bodies and minds from experimental, dangerous drugs, hormones and surgeries. Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Article III Project, noted that she trivialized the damage by saying, “Well, aspirin has side effects, too.”

The Manhattan Institute’s Leor Sapir, a staunch defender of children’s health, wrote that Sotomayor’s speaking about “girls who just ‘don’t want their breasts,’” demonstrates how gender ideology has “has normalized the unthinkable and seeped into every crack of our institutions.”

Tyler O’Neil, writing at The Daily Signal, noted several falsehoods in Prelogar’s statements, including the lie that puberty blockers are reversible, saying they are “just pressing pause on someone’s endogenous puberty to give them more time to understand their identity.”

In fact, as the Daily Citizen reported, the United Kingdom National Health Service retracted its statement that puberty blockers are “fully reversible” four years ago, with the group stating:

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. … It is not known what the psychological effects may be. It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

Children placed on puberty blockers can never go back in time and replace the lost years when they should have been growing and maturing through the natural process of puberty. The Manhattan Institute reports, “Puberty blockers may have serious side-effects, including lower IQ, osteoporosis, early and aggressive menopause, infertility, and depression.”

Though Prelogar said children can give informed consent about the possibility of losing their fertility with these powerful drugs, O’Neil pointed out that even transgender activists doubt whether minors have the emotional and cognitive ability to assess these risks.

Finally, The Heritage Foundation’s Roger Severino noted that Justice Clarence Thomas’ questioning of Strangio destroyed the convoluted argument that not allowing girls to access opposite-sex hormones, in order to “transition,” constituted sex discrimination.

Tennessee does not allow boys who want testosterone to build muscle size and strength. But if the ACLU and DOJ prevail, as Thomas pointed out, only girls would be allowed to take testosterone to develop male sex characteristics – “which is … sex discrimination!” Severino exclaimed.

It’s clear that giving children puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries for the purpose of identifying as the opposite sex is dangerous experimentation. The state of Tennessee wants to help children live in reality and appreciate their birth sex – a much more compassionate approach.

When parents and medical professionals irreversibly damage children with these procedures, the state is right to step in and stop them.

We’re praying common sense and compassion rule the day at the Supreme Court as the justices make their decision.

The case is United States v. Skrmetti. Here’s a transcript of oral arguments.

Image credit: Getty.