SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
john roberts
US Supreme Court Could OK Religious Public Charter School in Oklahoma
"Allowing taxpayer dollars to fund religious charter schools would put both public education and religious freedom at risk," warned one teachers union leader.
Apr 30, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments over what could become the country's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school—and opponents of the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School renewed their warnings about the proposal.
Faith leaders, parents, and educators celebrated last June, when the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against establishing St. Isidore. The test case for all such schools has now advanced to the country's highest court, which has a right-wing supermajority.
Reporting on over two hours of arguments Wednesday, Law Dork's Chris Geidner wrote that "the religious supremacy movement from the right's majority on the U.S. Supreme Court—with its outside helpers—appeared likely to... OK the first religious charter school in the country."
"Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh appeared eager to do so, and Justice Neil Gorsuch's past writing in a related case signaled his alignment with the move, at least in principle," Geidner detailed. "Chief Justice John Roberts—the key vote then since Justice Amy Coney Barrett has recused herself from the case—appeared to be open to the idea as well."
Other legal reporters also concluded that Roberts appears to be the "key vote," given that the three liberals—Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—all "expressed significant reservations" about allowing a religious charter school.
It appears very likely that the Supreme Court will force Oklahoma to approve and fund a Catholic charter school that reserves the right to indoctrinate students in Catholicism, force them to attend mass, and discriminate against non-Catholics. The three liberals sound increasingly exasperated.
— Mark Joseph Stern ( @mjsdc.bsky.social) April 30, 2025 at 11:52 AM
According toThe Associated Press:
If Roberts sides with the liberals, the court would be tied 4-4, an outcome that would leave the state court decision in place, but would leave the issue unresolved nationally.
If he joins his conservative colleagues, on the other hand, the court could find that the taxpayer-funded school is in line with a string of high court decisions that have allowed public funds to flow to religious entities. Those rulings were based on a different part of the First Amendment that protects religious freedom.
Roberts wrote the last three of those decisions. He acknowledged at one point that the court had previously ruled that states "couldn't exclude religious participants," suggesting support for St. Isidore.
But he also said the state's involvement in this case is "much more comprehensive" than in the earlier ones, a point that could lead him in the other direction.
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said in a statement after the arguments that "we respect religious education and the Founders' intention in separating church and state."
"Public schools, including public charter schools, are funded by taxpayer dollars because they are dedicated to helping all—not just some—children have a shot at success," the union leader said. "They are the bedrock of our democracy, and states have long worked to ensure that they remain secular, open, and accessible to all. They are not, and never have been, Sunday schools."
"The petitioners are seeking to change that," Weingarten warned. "Religious schools should be able to operate in the U.S., but they are not public schools, and they shouldn't be able to get the benefits and the funding yet ignore the obligations and responsibilities."
"Our hope is that the justices will uphold the Supreme Court of Oklahoma's decision, correctly siding with religious pluralism over sectarianism," she concluded. "A reversal would be a devastating blow to public education and the 90% of young people who rely on it. We must preserve and nurture the roots of our democracy, not tear up its very foundations."
The country's other leading teachers union also opposes the establishment of the Oklahoma school. National Education Association president Becky Pringle said in a statement this week that "every student—no matter where they live, what they look like, or their religion—deserves access to a fully funded neighborhood public school that gives them a sense of belonging and prepares them with the lessons and life skills they need."
"Allowing taxpayer dollars to fund religious charter schools would put both public education and religious freedom at risk," Pringle asserted, "opening the door to more privatization that undermines our public education system."
Proud to join @faithfulamerica.bsky.social outside of SCOTUS ahead of oral arguments in the OK religious charter school case, which challenges whether public funds can be used to support religious charter schools. As religious Americans, we say the separation of church and state is good for both!
[image or embed]
— Interfaith Alliance (@interfaithalliance.org) April 30, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Chris Yarrell, an attorney at the Center for Law and Education, similarly warned in a Common Dreams opinion piece earlier this month that "if the court sides with St. Isidore, the ripple effects could be seismic, triggering a wave of religious charter school applications and fundamentally altering the landscape of public education."
In addition to fighting for a taxpayer-funded religious school, Christian nationalists in Oklahoma want to put Bibles in public school classrooms—an effort the state Supreme Court has temporarily impeded.
The court last month blocked Oklahoma's superintendent of public instruction, Ryan Walters, and education department from spending taxpayer dollars on Bibles and Bible-infused instructional materials.
“This victory is an important step toward protecting the religious freedom of every student and parent in Oklahoma," legal groups supporting plaintiffs who challenged the policy
said at the time. "Walters has been abusing his power, and the court checked those abuses today. Our diverse coalition of families and clergy remains united against Walters' extremism and in favor of a core First Amendment principle: the separation of church and state."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Orders Trump Officials to Return Man Wrongfully Deported to Salvadoran Prison
"This is a massive win for justice and the rule of law," said one Democratic congresswoman. "Now Trump must comply."
Apr 10, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday issued a ruling with no noted dissents affirming a federal judge's order compelling President Donald Trump's administration to enable the stateside return of Kilmar Abrego García, a Salvadoran man wrongfully deported to a notorious prison in his native country.
"The rule of law won today," said Andrew Rossman, one of Abrego García's lawyers. "Time to bring him home."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Thursday's unsigned order that the Trump administration must "facilitate and effectuate" Abrego García's release from custody "and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."
"The intended scope of the term 'effectuate' in the district court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the district court's authority," Sotomayor added. "The district court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."
Last week, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis gave the Trump administration until Monday April 7 to return Abrego García, who was deported last month to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) super-maximum security prison in central El Salvador after the government claimed without credible evidence that he was a gang member.
"Defendants seized Abrego García without any lawful authority; held him in three separate domestic detention centers without legal basis; failed to present him to any immigration judge or officer; and forcibly transported him to El Salvador in direct contravention" of immigration law, she wrote.
A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay Xinis' order, with one judge on the tribunal writing, "The United States government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process."
The panel refuted the Trump administration's assertion that it could not return Abrego García, calling the government's argument "that the federal courts are powerless to intervene... unconscionable."
However, on Monday, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked Xinis' order just before the midnight deadline pending review by all nine justices.
Abrego García's legal team argued that their client was the victim of a "Kafkaesque mistake." Among the so-called evidence the government used to claim he is a member of the MS-13 criminal gang was a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie he wore, and a snitch's tip. The Trump administration subsequently admitted in a March 31 court filing that Abrego García's deportation was an "administrative error" and an "oversight."
Before he was deported, Abrego García, 29, lived in Maryland with his wife, Jennifer Stefania Vasquez Sura, a U.S. citizen; their autistic, nonverbal 5-year-old child; and two children from Vasquez Sura's previous relationship. His lawyers said he left El Salvador to escape the then-endemic gang violence there.
Advocates for Abrego García welcomed the high court's order, with Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) writing on the social media site Bluesky that the justices "did the right thing."
"This is about the rule of law and due process," he added. "Kilmar Abrego García should be reunited with his family."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said: "This is a massive win for justice and the rule of law. Now Trump must comply."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Chief Justice Blocks Court Order Requiring Return of Man Sent to El Salvador Prison
"Justices regularly issue administrative stays so the full court can mull a request," one legal expert noted. "It is surely upsetting for Abrego Garcia, though."
Apr 07, 2025
Just hours before a midnight deadline, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday blocked District Judge Paula Xinis' order directing the Trump administration to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador, to the United States.
Roberts—who is part of the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority but has publicly criticized President Donald Trump's attacks on the federal judiciary and sometimes sided with the liberal justices against the administration—did not explain his decision to grant an administrative stay, which temporarily pauses Xinis' order until the high court makes another decision.
"I would not reach too much into Roberts' action," saidSlate's Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the court. "Justices regularly issue administrative stays so the full court can mull a request. Remember that Roberts also stayed Judge [Amir Ali's] order on foreign aid before the full court ultimately denied a stay. It is surely upsetting for Abrego Garcia, though."
Roberts ordered Abrego Garcia's attorneys to respond by 5:00 pm ET Tuesday. "BUT: Abrego Garcia's lawyers have—at roughly the same time, although Roberts' order appears first on the docket—already filed their response," notedLaw Dork's Chris Geidner.
"In short, the question is now back to the court," Geidner explained. "No reply is required in shadow docket requests, although it is often submitted. The court does not need to wait for a reply, so any reply should be submitted as quickly as a party thinks the court would need it/might act."
As Abrego Garcia's lawyers wrote to the high court:
The government knew about the court order prohibiting Abrego Garcia's removal to El Salvador, and admits that removing him in violation of that order was an "administrative error"... Abrego Garcia has never been charged with a crime, in any country. He is not wanted by the government of El Salvador. He sits in a foreign prison solely at the behest of the United States, as the product of a Kafka-esque mistake.
The government "can—and does—return wrongfully removed migrants as a matter of course"... The district court's order instructing the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return is routine... It does not implicate foreign policy or even domestic immigration policy in any case. The United States has never claimed that it is powerless to correct its error and before today, it did not contend that doing so would cause it any harm. That is because the only one harmed by the current state of affairs is Abrego Garcia.
The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to intervene earlier Monday, after Maryland-based Xinis doubled down on an order issued Friday and a panel from the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit declined to grant a stay.
One of the appellate judges wrote: "The United States government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process. The government's contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable."
Before the Trump administration sent Abrego Garcia to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in his native El Salvador, he lived in Maryland with his wife, Jennifer Stefania Vasquez Sura, a U.S. citizen; their autistic, nonverbal 5-year-old child; and two children from Vasquez Sura's previous relationship.
As CNNreported Monday, before Roberts' decision, Vasquez Sura had welcomed the appeals decision and renewed her call for Trump and Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, to bring her husband home.
“This decision gives me hope, and even more encouragement to keep fighting. My children, family, and I will continue praying and seeking justice. Now that the court has spoken, I ask again that both President Trump and President Bukele stop attempting any further delays," she said. "They need to follow the court's order NOW. My children are waiting to be reunited with their father tonight."
Congressional Democrats—including Reps. Joaquin Castro (Texas) and Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) on Monday—have also pressured the administration to return Abrego Garcia to his family. Castro also shared a warning from Joyce White Vance, a University of Alabama law professor and legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, that "if it can happen to Abrego Garcia, it can happen to any of us."
As Common Dreamsreported, Trump on Sunday expressed a desire to accept Bukele's offer to take prisoners who are U.S. citizens. "I love that," he said. "If we could take some of our 20-time wise guys that push people into subways and hit people over the back of the head and purposely run people over in cars, if he would take them, I would be honored to give them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular