The Supreme Court appears to be to allow the first taxpayer -based religious charter school

The conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court appeared on Wednesday to clarify the way to establish the country’s first religious religious school with direct funding in taxpayers.

The judges listened to arguments in a historical dispute from Oklahoma, where the Supreme Court of the state last year prevented the Catholic Church from obtaining a rented contract on the basis that it had violated the government constitutional and federal constitutional ban on the sectarian education sponsored by the government.

The decision to cancel the state’s Supreme Court had ripples in the country, especially in the 45 states that include 8,000 rented schools serving more than 3.8 million children.

The Republican Public Prosecutor argues that rented schools are public schools – open to all and are subject to close supervision – and in this way, act as accessories for the state government that are subject to the principles of the separation of the church and the state.

The potential school attorneys – St. Issidor of Seville Catholic Catholic School – insist on being created and monitored, especially since excluding them from financing the rented schools available in general is religious discrimination.

For more than two hours, the judges discussed in application of the competing religion of religion for the first amendment of the issue, which weighs both the prohibition of the state’s establishment of religion and its protection to practice freedom for religious faith.

The three liberal members of the court have been unified in the opinion that rented schools are ideal public institutions that cannot enhance a specific ideology using taxpayer boxes.

Judge Sonia Sotomior said: “The essence of the Foundation’s condition was, we will not push religious leaders to teach their religion,” said Judge Sonia Sotomior.

Judge Elena Kagan indicated that Oklahoma’s law, which creates a program for the rented school, explicitly says it should be non -religious.

“These are state -run institutions,” Kagan said. “With regard to a full set of things, the state runs these schools and insists on some requirements.”

Conservatives have suggested that they have a different point of view mainly on rented schools – as contractors to serve a public instead of government arm.

Judge Clarence Thomas pointed out that “the argument presented by Saint Issidor and the Board of Directors is that it is a special entity participating in the state program.” “It was not created by the state program.”

Judge Brett Cavano expressed concern that the ruling against St. Issidor for the reasons for the first amendment could question other government contracts with religious affiliate organizations.

“I think the anxiety here is that the upper homes or food banks that are religiously managed, incubator care agencies, adopting agencies, or shelters, many of which get great funding from the government, are likely to become government representatives, and therefore, they are not able to practice their religion,” said Cavano.

A series of recent Supreme Court decisions supported the idea that the general benefits programs funded by taxpayers, from school vouchers to the state -run scholarships, must be available on an equal footing, even if a person or organization has a religious affiliation.

Many judges said that these precedents apply to the Oklahoma case.

Kavano stressed that religious rented schools will provide families “options”, but do not limit students to religious education.

“A student in Oklahoma is free to choose a public school, right? No student is required to attend a rented school, right?” He said.

“This is true,” Gregory Gar, the lawyer who represents the state, answered.

Judge Neil Jourish suggested that individual countries opposing religiously registered schools can allocate their laws to prevent this – and may reduce the independence of the charter.

“I can imagine that some states may respond to a decision in your favor by imposing more requirements on rented schools,” James Campbell, who represents the prosecutor, said.

Judges John Roberts, critical questions from both sides. At some point, Roberts saw that the St. Esidor Investment School would constitute a remarkable “comprehensive participation” between the church and the state. Later, the relationship with the holding of Catholic charities with Philadelphia to provide adoption services; The Supreme Court’s decision for 2021 said that the city could not exclude the religious agency from the incubating care program.

“How is this different from what we have here?” Oklahoma’s lawyer Roberts, Gregory Gar, asked. “You have an educational program, and you want not to allow them to participate with a religious entity.”

Judge Amy Kony Barrett concluded from the case last year, but she did not explain her decision. Veteran court monitors have noticed their close relationships with the University of Notre Dame and personal relations with law professors there who participate in the case.

Her absence creates the possibility of a 4-4 network of network, in which case, the Supreme Court ruling in Oklahoma will be. Roberts is widely seen as decisive vote.

“The oral arguments explained today that individual states and religious institutions should not be treated as second -class citizens,” said Carrie Sevirino, a former writer for Judge Clainis Thomas and head of JCN, a conservative legal advocacy group. “I expect the court to follow a precedent and allow Saint Esidor to provide an educational option for Oklahoma students.”

Religious rented school opponents said that they are afraid that there will be a major judgment on the horizon and they can be transformed.

“If today’s arguments are any reference, the Supreme Court may be about to abandon one of the principles of the foundation in our democracy,” said Reverend Dr. Shannon Felk, Executive Director of the Believers Group of America, which is the Left Christian Call group. “Let’s be clear, this has always been a test, and today, the constitutional protection that guards the true religious freedom of generations is at risk.”