In a major development for religious liberty and school choice, the U.S. Supreme Court has deadlocked in a high-profile case that could have opened the door to publicly funded religious charter schools. By splitting 4–4, the justices allowed a lower court decision to stand, blocking Oklahoma’s attempt to fund what would have been the first religious charter school in the nation.
Though the ruling leaves no binding precedent, its implications are significant. For families seeking to raise their children in alignment with their faith—and for religious freedom advocates nationwide—this outcome is both disappointing and energizing. The fight continues.
The Cases in Question: St. Isidore and the Free Exercise Clause
At the center of this legal battle was St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, an online K-12 institution backed by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa. Approved by Oklahoma’s Statewide Virtual Charter School Board in 2023, the school was slated to receive $23.3 million in public funds over five years.
But the plan sparked intense controversy.
Opponents, including Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, sued to block the school’s charter, arguing that taxpayer funds should not support religious instruction. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed in a 6–2 decision, ruling that St. Isidore—because it would incorporate religious teachings into a publicly funded curriculum—violated both the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause and Oklahoma’s own laws governing charter schools.
The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where supporters of St. Isidore hoped to build on recent legal victories affirming religious rights in education funding. Those included Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017) and Carson v. Makin (2022), which held that states cannot exclude religious institutions from public benefit programs solely due to their religious status.
But this case was different. Here, the school would not just be run by a religious institution—it would actively incorporate faith-based instruction as a charter school, which under Oklahoma law is considered a public entity.
The Deadlock and What It Means
The Supreme Court’s 4–4 tie, announced on May 22, means that the Oklahoma court’s ruling remains in effect. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case due to her ties to Notre Dame Law School, which had been involved in legal advising for St. Isidore. That left only eight justices to decide the matter.
Because the Court issued no majority opinion, the ruling sets no national precedent. The judgment simply read: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” This leaves the legal landscape uncertain. Religious schools are not explicitly barred from receiving charter funds nationwide, but neither are they clearly entitled to them under the Constitution.
Opposing Visions of Religious Freedom
This split ruling underscores a profound national divide over what “religious freedom” means.
Supporters of St. Isidore—including conservative advocacy groups and many Christian families—argue that denying religious schools access to public charter funding constitutes discrimination. If charter schools are open to other independent organizations, why should religious ones be excluded?
They argue that excluding religious schools from public programs solely because of their faith violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.
On the other hand, opponents, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, see publicly funded religious charter schools as a clear breach of the Establishment Clause. They warn that allowing religious instruction in taxpayer-funded schools could erode secular government and open the door to discriminatory practices by religious institutions.
Attorney General Drummond framed the case as a necessary defense against compelled support for all religions, including what he called “radical Islamic schools”.
A Setback, Not a Defeat
Despite the setback, religious liberty advocates are not deterred.
“This 4-4 tie is a non-decision. Now we’re in overtime,” Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt said. “There will be another case just like this one and Justice Barrett will break the tie. This is far from a settled issue”.
Indeed, legal experts expect similar cases to be brought in other states—or even back in Oklahoma under slightly different circumstances that would allow Barrett’s participation.
The fact that the Court didn’t produce a clear majority decision, and that the ruling was issued without an opinion, leaves the door wide open for future litigation.
What’s at Stake for Religious Freedom
At its core, this case raises critical questions about the future of education, parental rights, and religious liberty in America.
Parents, especially those of faith, have both the right and responsibility to raise their children according to their values. If public education is a universal benefit, then excluding religious options from that benefit inherently discriminates against people of faith.
As Religious Freedom Under Fire wrote last month in our article, “Should Taxpayers Fund Religious Charter Schools?”:
“Parents should not be penalized for seeking the best educational path for their children, especially when that path is grounded in deeply held beliefs.”
Taxpayer-funded education must serve the public—but that public includes religious families. The notion that religious instruction is somehow less worthy of public support than any other form of education is rooted in an outdated and discriminatory vision of secularism.
What Comes Next?
In light of the Court’s deadlock, St. Isidore’s board has announced it will explore other ways to offer a virtual Catholic education. Meanwhile, religious liberty advocates are already working on new legal strategies to return this issue to the Supreme Court—this time with all nine justices participating.
Charter schools continue to grow in popularity, particularly among parents seeking alternatives to traditional public education. If religious institutions remain excluded from these programs, it limits choice for millions of American families.
Ultimately, this case is not the end—it is a turning point. The question isn’t going away, and the high court will likely face it again, soon.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s 4–4 split on religious charter schools is a frustrating moment for those who hoped the Court would affirm the principle that religious institutions should not be second-class citizens in the realm of public funding.
Still, this ruling has energized supporters of religious freedom and school choice. Their vision—of a nation where faith-based schools are embraced rather than excluded—is far from defeated.The fight continues, and Religious Freedom Under Fire will be here to cover every step of the journey.
Steve Bowcut is an award-winning journalist. He is an editor and writer for Religious Freedom Under Fire as well as other security and non-security online publications. Follow and connect with Steve on Twitter, Substack, and Facebook.
