We thought that the Supreme Court had finally cleansed anti-religious discrimination from the jurisprudence of the establishment clause. After years of chaos – after confusing the state-sponsored ban on religion with an invented mission to scrub faith from public life, the court restored sanity through a series of rulings on religious schools and public funds. It returned the law to understanding pre-war times. Equal treatment of religion does not violate the Constitution.
Still, I'm here again.
Those who argue that equal treatment of religion violates established clauses betray that meaning.
In a move that surprised observers, Oklahoma Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond and the state Supreme Court have alleged that the state cannot recognize religious charter schools.
On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court heard oral debate. Charter School Boards V, across the state of Oklahoma. Drummond. The case focuses on St. Issidor, a Catholic online school that seeks to join the Oklahoma charter school system. Drummond argues that the school's religious affiliation is disqualifying it. He sued the state charter board. This is a movement usually made by the ACLU or extremist secular groups.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court was by his side. The court argued that granting Catholic schools charter status violated the First Amendment by effectively establishing Catholicism as a religion of the state. The judge was labelled “state actors” by charter schools, claiming that religious affiliation would disqualify the school from public recognition.
This logic changes the initial modification of that head. The Constitution does not require hostility towards religion. That's necessary Neutral. A religious school denying access to religious interests violates precedents simply because it is religion.
Oklahoma Charter School Law “Private universities, universities, private and private organizations” allow them to apply for state funds to open charter schools. Excluding religion applicants, it contradicts not one but three major Supreme Court decisions.
in Columbia's Trinity Lutheran Church V. Comer (2017) ruled that exclusion of religious schools from public interests that otherwise qualify “only because they are churches” is “obsessed with our constitution.” The case included grants for resurfacement of playgrounds. If the state cannot deny rubber mulch, then it cannot deny full charter status.
in Espinozav. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), a majority of five to four found that the state's constitution violated the free movement clause, except for assistance to religious institutions rather than secular institutions. Public benefits cannot be denied “only because of the religious nature of the school,” stressed Secretary John Roberts.
Then came Carson vs. Makin (2022), Maine had attempted to distinguish between religious status and religious use, removing religious schools from the voucher fund. The court refused to distinguish. Written again for the majority, Roberts ruled that the program “will operate on the basis of religious exercises to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools.” He attempts to determine how religious schools are carrying out their mission lead to an entanglement of unconstitutional conditions.
So, after such iron-like precedents, how do we find ourselves carrying Republican state attorney general and state Trump courts in all county rulings that religious schools cannot even apply for public funds?
The answer lies in years of slimy Republican rule. These are only Republicans who have hampered judicial reform and refused to challenge activist courts, and are their names alone. Now Drummond wants promotion. He has already announced his run for the governor Overring State Education Supervision Decisions Prohibited porn In a public library.
This case reveals a larger pattern. The court acts as a one-way ratchet. Even after a powerful Supreme Court decision, the Free Court denies precedent. They delay, split and distinguish hair without merit. The High Court may turn Oklahoma back on, but that ruling rarely secures a lasting victory.
And irony? Those who argue that equal treatment of religion violates established clauses betray that meaning.
During the House of Representatives debate over the first amendment of 1789; James Madison explained: “The Congress should not establish religion, nor should it enforce legal observations by law, and should not force people to worship God in any way against their conscience.”
That principle – freedom of conscience without coercion – shaped the American experiment. Far from excluding religion, the founders took on the influence. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote“Americans combine the concepts of religion and freedom so closely in their minds that it is impossible to imagine one without the others,” he added that politics and religion formed an “alliance that never disbanded.”
It's time for the Supreme Court to reaffirm the Alliance – it is clearly, assertive, and unsupposed, without leaving any room for lower courts to ignore. And in Oklahoma, it's time to elect Republicans who believe the Bible belongs to the Bible's belt.
