In late April, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case of Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board v. Drummond.
The case pitted a proposed charter school — St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — in Oklahoma, which would have been the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school, against the state of Oklahoma. The case sparked intense debate about the separation of Church and state, with profound implications for Catholic education and the First Amendment.
The case centered on whether a publicly funded charter school could incorporate Catholic teachings, raising tensions between the First Amendment’s free exercise clause and establishment clause.
On May 22, the high court split 4-4, which meant upholding the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling against the school funding.
The deadlock vote resulted from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic and a conservative voice on the Court, recusing herself from the case. Barrett, a Notre Dame Law School graduate and former professor, said she has deep ties to the university’s Religious Liberty Clinic, which represented St. Isidore, and she also has a close relationship with Professor Nicole Stelle Garnett, an early legal adviser to the school.
Reverting to the Oklahoma ruling blocks the school from receiving public funds, a setback for advocates of religious charter schools.
The St. Isidore case had many Catholic educators and administrators enthusiastic about a favorable ruling, as the makeup of the high court consists of six Catholics: John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Kavanaugh, a conservative Catholic appointed by President Trump, and Sotomayor, a liberal justice with a Catholic background, took active roles in oral arguments.
Kavanaugh expressed concern that excluding religious schools from public funding could constitute “rank discrimination against religion,” while Sotomayor argued that funding a Catholic charter school might violate the establishment clause by prioritizing one religion over others.
Their participation, despite their personal faith connections, underscores a principled approach to their roles as justices, aligning with Catholic teachings on justice and public service, as reflected in each line of questions.
Some of Barrett’s critics, expecting her to champion conservative Catholic causes, were surprised by her decision to recuse herself. Meanwhile, others praised her for prioritizing ethics over ideology, with commentators noting that her recusal prevented “an air of bias” from overshadowing the case.
As Catholics, we can see her choice as a reflection of the Gospel’s call for humility, echoing Christ’s teaching to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Barrett’s recusal ensured her judicial role served justice, not personal affiliations.
For Catholics, especially those who support the structure of Catholic education, her example encourages us to act with integrity, even when it means stepping back from a cause we hold dear.
By prioritizing fairness, Barrett strengthened the Church’s witness as a force for justice and truth.
Let us commit to carrying our faith into the world with the same humility and resolve, trusting that God’s plan unfolds through our faithful choices.