St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 24 Jan 2025

1. This Court has repeatedly held that the Free Exercise Clause prohibits a state from denying generally available benefits to a school solely because it is religious. That principle should have resolved this case. Petitioner is a private religious institution. It seeks to partake in the benefits of Oklahoma's charter school program. But the court below invalidated Petitioner's contract with the charter school board. The court disregarded this Court's Free Exercise precedents because, in its view, Petitioner had become an arm of the government by virtue of that contract. It thus held that the Establishment Clause and Oklahoma laws aimed at creating "a complete separation of church and state" compelled the court to deny Petitioner-on religious grounds-the benefits created by Oklahoma's Charter Schools Act. The questions presented are:
2. Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students.
3. Whether a state violates the Free Exercise Clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state's charter school program solely because the schools are religious, or whether a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the Establishment Clause requires.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involves St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School's challenge against Drummond regarding the denial of public funding for religious virtual schools. The school argued that excluding them from receiving state funds available to non-religious institutions violated their First Amendment rights, specifically the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of St. Isidore, holding that denying public funds solely based on religious affiliation was unconstitutional discrimination against religion. This decision builds upon previous rulings emphasizing equal treatment for religious entities in accessing government benefits unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.