October Term 2024
No. 24-394

Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond

Petitioner Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board · Respondent Gentner Drummond, Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma

Reporter
605 U.S. ___ (2025)
From
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
How it got here
writ of <i>certiorari</i>

1. Are a privately owned and operated school’s educational decisions considered state action simply because the school has a contract with the state to provide free education to students?  2. Does the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibit, or the Establishment Clause require, a state to exclude religious schools from its charter-school program?

Question before the Court

What happened

Gentner Drummond, the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, filed an action against the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board and its members seeking to invalidate their contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. St. Isidore, supported by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa, aims to operate as a Catholic virtual charter school. In creating this contract, the Charter School Board recognized religious rights and entitlements for St. Isidore, which deviated from the standard expectation that charter schools remain nonsectarian under Oklahoma law. On June 5 and October 9, 2023, the Charter School Board approvingly voted for St. Isidore's application and contract, both by a 3-2 margin. The contract omitted standard provisions prohibiting religious affiliation while affirming St. Isidore’s religious mission, which the State contends violates the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the Establishment Clause of the federal Constitution. Consequently, the State requested a writ of mandamus to rescind the contract, arguing that the use of public funds for a sectarian institution contravenes legal and constitutional prohibitions. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma assumed original jurisdiction and granted belated relief to the State, holding that the contract violated state and federal law, including constitutional provisions prohibiting government establishment of religion.

Pending
with the majority concurring in dissent recused filed an opinion

The holding

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma was affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Argued by

For the petitioner
  • James A. Campbell for the Petitioners in No. 24-394
  • Michael H. McGinley for the Petitioner in No. 24-396
  • D. John Sauer for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners
For the respondent
  • Gregory G. Garre for the Respondent

Case path

  1. Jan 24, 2025 granted
  2. Apr 30, 2025 argued
  3. May 22, 2025 decided

Read the opinions