On April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard the much-awaited and much-discussed case of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School v. Drummond, which originated in Oklahoma.1
On May 22, 2025, less than a month later, and without issuing an actual opinion, the SCOTUS delivered a 4-4 split ruling on the landmark case, which effectively leaves intact the lower court’s decision (in Oklahoma) that blocked the establishment of the online K-12 religious charter school. While it is not known how the eight Justices voted, it is likely that three “liberal” Justices and one “conservative” Justice (Chief Justice John Roberts?) joined forces and voted against the religious virtual charter school.
“Conservative” Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from this pivotal case months ago because of a conflict of interest. She is connected to a Notre Dame Law School clinic that backs the Catholic virtual charter school. Her presence may well have produced a different ruling. Barret is seen as playing a key role in future education cases that further erode the public-private divide.
The Oklahoma State Supreme Court ruled 6-2 on June 25, 2024, that St. Isidore of Seville Catholic K-12 Virtual Charter School is unconstitutional and cannot open and enroll students. Writing for the majority at the time, Justice James Winchester said that, “the contract between the state board and St. Isidore violates the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act and the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.” Reflecting decades of widespread confusion about the “publicness”/”privateness” of charter schools, the Oklahoma State Supreme Court correctly identified the Catholic cyber charter school as sectarian but erroneously claimed that charter schools are public schools. To be clear, there is no such thing as a “public” charter school or “hybrid” public/private charter school in the United States. Not a single charter school in America is operated by publicly elected officials. There are dozens of other big differences between charter schools, which are contract schools, and public schools.
It is also worth noting here that virtual charter schools across the country have a notoriously abysmal academic record and a long history of fraud and corruption. Further, both brick-and-mortar charter schools and virtual charter schools often operate with little accountability and offer fewer services and programs than traditional public schools. They also tend to have fewer nurses and more inexperienced teachers than traditional public schools.
The main takeaway from the 4-4 split decision from the SCOTUS is that thousands of deregulated charter schools across the country, all operated by unelected private persons, will continue to siphon hundreds of millions of public dollars a year from methodically under-funded and demonized public schools. The May 22, 2025, U.S. Supreme Court decision in no way stops or restricts school privatization and the assault on traditional public schools by so-called “public” charter schools that fail and close every week. Indeed, no matter how the court vote worked out, privately-operated charter schools of all kinds would still continue to bleed public schools of money and property in the name of “choice” and “freedom.”
Another takeaway is that cases like this one are likely to come before the SCOTUS again. This is not the first and last such case to come before the Supreme Court. Neoliberals and others are determined to blur the critical distinction between public and private so as to maximize profits in a failing economy that has left owners of capital with no choice but to raid the public sector for their self-serving interests. This financial parasitism is always undertaken under the veneer of high ideals. In other words, charter schools have long been a political-economic project, not an educational one. Endless disinformation about “empowering parents” and “expanding choices” cannot hide this.
While opinions and views issued by the SCOTUS are often interesting and revealing, there is practically no chance that any court ruling anywhere will change the fundamentally privatized character of non-profit and for-profit charter schools. Neoliberal ideology permeates all spheres and sectors in society, generating anticonsciousness everywhere. Privatization and deregulation, hallmarks of the charter school sector, are key aspects of the neoliberal agenda launched 50 years ago at home and abroad. This is why all charter schools, unlike traditional public schools, operate largely independently of the government.
Charter schools are private by design, not by accident. They have been about privatization, not “innovation” or “choice,” from the very start. The oft-repeated assertion that charter schools did not start out as privatization schemes 30+ years ago but were hijacked along the way by privatizers and set on a terrible path is incorrect and inconsistent with the historical record.
Not only are charter schools created and started by unelected private citizens, they also cannot levy taxes, avoid many laws and regulations, treat teachers as “at-will” employees, are mostly deunionized, routinely cherry-pick students, have high teacher turnover rates, siphon tons of money from public schools, increase segregation, and more. What would be the point of making them “public” or “more public” if the 34-year-old raison d’etre for their existence and operation is to be set up independent of and different from traditional public schools (see here, here, here, and here)? It is wishful thinking to believe that 8,000+ autonomous, rules-free, “innovative” charter schools will stop being privatized arrangements and suddenly become state actors after existing and operating as private actors for more than three decades.
In the final analysis the fundamental principle at stake is that the public sphere and the private sphere are distinct spheres with different structures and purposes, and that no public funds or public property should ever be handed over to the private sector. Public money and public property belong only to the public and must be used for purely public purposes, free of the narrow aim of maximizing profit for a handful of individuals. Public funds and public property must not flow to any private entities, religious or secular.
Retrogressive trends and forces can only be reversed by an empowered polity that opens the path of progress to society. Such a historic responsibility is not possible without organizing spaces for serious discussion and analysis of what is going on. Neoliberal views and ideas serve only to block the path of progress on all fronts.
ENDNOTE:
1 Some have stated that Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond is an Islamophobe. Drummond has long stated that religious charter schools would open the door to the promotion of “radical Islam.” Justice Samuel Alito even said, “We have statement after statement by the attorney general that reeks of hostility toward Islam.”
The post Split Supreme Court Ruling on Catholic Charter School Still a Big Win for School Privatizers first appeared on Dissident Voice.