SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Although another case could soon come before the high court, the ACLU still welcomed that, for now, "public schools must remain secular and welcome all students, regardless of faith."
Public education and First Amendment advocates on Thursday celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to allow the nation's first religious public charter school in Oklahoma—even though the outcome of this case doesn't rule out the possibility of another attempt to establish such an institution.
"Requiring states to allow religious public schools would dismantle religious freedom and public education as we know it," Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, said in a statement about the 4-4 decison. "Today, a core American constitutional value remains in place: Public schools must remain secular and welcome all students, regardless of faith."
Wang's group and other partners had filed a lawsuit over St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School on behalf of parents, faith leaders, and public school advocates. Her colleague Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, declared Thursday that "the very idea of a religious public school is a constitutional oxymoron."
The new one-page opinion states that "the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court," which means the Oklahoma Supreme Court's June 2024 ruling against St. Isidore remains in place. There are nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett—who is part of its right-wing supermajority—recused herself from this case.
"While Justice Barrett did not provide an explanation for her recusal, it may be because she is close friends with Nicole Stelle Garnett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School who was an early adviser for St. Isidore," The New York Timesnoted. "Although justices sometimes provide reasons when they recuse themselves, they are not required to do so."
Law Dork's Chris Geidner warned that "a new challenge not requiring her recusal could easily return to the court in short order—especially now that the court has shown its interest in taking on the issue."
In this case, as Common Dreams reported during oral arguments last month, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to be the deciding vote. Geidner pointed out Thursday that while it seems most likely that he sided with the three liberals, "even that could have been as much of a vote to put off a decision as a substantive ruling on the matter."
Some groups happy with the outcome in this case also highlighted that the battle is expected to continue.
"This is a crucial, if narrow, win for constitutional principles," Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. "A publicly funded religious charter school would have obliterated the wall of separation between state and church. We're relieved that, at least for now, the First Amendment still means what it says."
"The fight isn't over," Gaylor added. "The forces trying to undermine our public schools and constitutional freedoms are already regrouping. FFRF will continue to defend secular education and the rights of all Americans to be free from government-imposed religion."
Leading teachers unions also weighed in with both an amicus brief submitted to the high court and Thursday statements.
"Educators and parents know that student success depends on more resources in our public schools, not less. Yet for too long, we have seen anti-public education forces attempt to deprive public school students of necessary funding and support," National Education Association president Becky Pringle said Thursday. "We are gratified that the Supreme Court did not take the radical step of upending public education by requiring states to have religious charter schools."
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten also welcomed that the high court on Thursday let stand the Oklahoma decision, "which correctly upheld the separation of church and state and backed the founders' intention to place religious pluralism over sectarianism."
"We are grateful that it upheld the state's highest court's clear and unambiguous ruling to preserve and nurture the roots of our democracy, not tear up its very foundations," Weingarten said in a statement. "We respect and honor religious education. It should be separate from public schooling."
"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," she stressed. "They are the bedrock of our democracy, and states have long worked to ensure that they remain secular, open, and accessible to all."
This article has been updated with comment from the National Education Association.
Four groups aim to degrade our one-person-one-vote election system so a few billionaires and certain religious zealots can consolidate their political power.
The Trump coalition includes four groups of people:
All four groups share one basic aim: to degrade our one-person-one-vote election system so a few billionaires and certain religious zealots can consolidate their political power to eliminate free and fair elections to become even more controlling and richer than they already are.
Here are brief descriptions of the four groups.
The hardcore, mostly-rural MAGA base can be understood as an echo of the Confederacy. Philosophically, many of them are the same people who tried to destroy the United States to preserve slavery via the Civil War (1861-1865). In their view, the basic ideas that inspired the founding of the U.S. (1776-1788) are wrong: All humans are not created equal and should not have equal rights under law. In 2022, MAGA believers included about 15% of the U.S. adult population, or about 39 million out of 258 million adults.
For many MAGA believers, President Donald Trump has been sent by God to make American great again, restoring white power. To many of them, white men naturally should dominate all people of color and all women. To varying degrees, many of them scorn foreigners, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, LGBTQIA people, and anyone they think looks down upon them (the mainstream media, Hollywood, and college types, among others).
White MAGA confederates share a seething resentment that they are losing the power and privilege that they have always taken for granted. Trump is their retribution, and many of them find community by rejoicing in his sadistic cruelty.
Of course, they want to restrict the vote. To achieve that goal, they are working to limit or eliminate the right to “due process” guaranteed in the Constitution, which is a step toward their goal of curbing the authority of the judicial branch of government. They seek freedom—freedom to do whatever they want to whomever they please, and they have made real progress.
The Paypal Mafia is a loosely-affiliated group of billionaires in California’s Silicon Valley with roots in apartheid South Africa. Nazi-saluting Elon Musk is the most famous of them, though Peter Thiel is likely more influential. Many have become devotees of a man named Curtis Yarvin, a racist and avowed monarchist who believes democracy is unworkable and has failed. Yarvin is friends with Vice President JD Vance, whose political career was launched and funded by Peter Thiel.
The Paypal Mafia wants the U.S. to be run by a king, whom they would call a “CEO” (but which Curtis Yarvin has bluntly called “a dictator”). Seriously. They want the nation run like a corporation because corporations are “efficient” (meaning tightly controlled). Another term for what they want is “techno-fascism.”
This “tech broligarchy” (which reveres unlimited male power) wants to “get government off its back” as it continues to create and sustain gigantic monopolies of dubious legality like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Paypal, Palantir, and so forth—while they freely explore the profit potential of crypto currencies and artificial intelligence, among other dangerous wild-west technologies. Obviously, they oppose one-person one-vote democracy, which might eventually break up their monopolies and curb their dangerous tech gambles.
Religious nationalism includes a large group of people who share an overwhelming desire for political power to eliminate democracy and who are exploiting religion to achieve that goal.
As Katherine Stewart has shown in two well-researched books, The Power Worshippers and Money, Lies, and God, this is not a religious movement. It is a radical anti-democracy political movement dressed up in religious disguise.
About one-third of U.S. adults (roughly 78 million people) either strongly support (26 million) or partially or moderately support (52 million) religious nationalism. Although they are often called Christian nationalists, their actions and goals have little to do with the teachings of Jesus—feed the hungry, house the homeless, welcome the stranger. None of that.
Christian nationalists are Donald Trump’s largest group of devoted supporters. Two out of three completely or mostly agree that God ordained Trump to win the 2024 election. Without religious nationalist support, Trump would never have become president. So, their wish is his command.
As Katherine Stewart has shown, religious nationalists want political power so they can eliminate democracy from the United States. They want to end the separation of church and state; eliminate public education and, in its place, substitute particular religious teachings; ban abortion nationwide and restrict access to birth control; deprive gay people of the right to marry and rescind laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation; eliminate no-fault divorce and restore “traditional” family roles in which men dominate; pack the federal judiciary with religious nationalists; allow corporations to discriminate openly against female employees (denying them access to birth control); declare “war” on progressive social policies and on “critical race theory;” end all restrictions on corporate monopolies; cut funding for science; get rid of governmental social safety nets (for example, social security, Medicaid, and food programs) so people will become dependent on churches for their survival; promote a Christian Nation identity in which conservative Christians have a right and a duty to enforce their values, sometimes by force; and of course make it hard or impossible for most people to vote.
Their core mission is to take over America and end democracy. Some of them are well on their way.
Over the years, many people have compared Donald Trump’s family to a “crime family” and Trump himself to a Mafia godfather, demanding unquestioned loyalty from underbosses, enforcers, and associates.
Trump is always looking for ways to keep his soldiers and associates (in the three groups described above) loyal by giving them some of what they want. Meanwhile his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, are roaming across the planet making lucrative deals with people who seek privileged access to the President of the United States. Cryptocurrency has made such access simple and secret.
So long as Donald Trump can use his office to acquire gobs of money, push people around, receive endless praise and adoration from his subordinates, and inflict cruel revenge on those who stand in his way, he seems happy. His sons seem satisfied to score a few billion dollars here and there, based on their family ties to the president. At bottom, the family wants to retain power so they and their soldiers and associates can make boatloads more money. This requires modifying election systems so Republicans can win despite the odds against them.
So that, in a nutshell, is the Trump coalition. They all share one goal: to end one-person one-vote democracy. To do that, they first want to disempower the federal judiciary and eliminate the expectation of “due process.” Then, by making it difficult or impossible for large numbers of Americans to vote, they intend to remain in power forever.
It is up to the rest of us to make sure they don’t.
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."