Opinion Summary: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond | Case No. 24-394 | Date Decided: 5/22/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

The Oklahoma Constitution requires Oklahoma to “establish[ ] and maint[ain] . . . a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control.” The Oklahoma Constitution also requires that [n]o public money . . . shall ever be appropriated . . . or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion . . . or sectarian institution.”

Consistent with these constitutional mandates, the Oklahoma Legislature established a type of public school[] established by contract called a charter school. The Oklahoma Charter School Board established a public charter school that fully incorporates Catholic teachings into every aspect of the school, including its curriculum and co-curricular activities.

Following the Board’s predecessor’s establishment of the aforementioned public charter school, the Oklahoma Attorney filed an original action with the Oklahoma Supreme Court to prevent the charter school from operating.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a state can exclude privately owned and operated religious charter schools from its charter-school program by enforcing state-law bans on "sectarian" and religiously affiliated charter schools. The court also held that a charter school engages in state action for constitutional purposes when it contracts with the state to provide publicly funded education.

Questions Presented:

1. Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students.
2. Whether a state violates the Free Exercise Clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state's charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or whether a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the Establishment Clause requires.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 4-4. Per Curiam Opinion.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioners in 24-394: James A. Campbell, Lansdowne, Va.
• For Petitioner in 24-396: Michael H. McGinley, Washington, D.C.
• For United States, as Amicus Curiae: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
• For Respondent: Gregory G. Garre, Washington, D.C.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction

00:15 Question Presented

00:53 Result

01:05 Opinion

01:10 Case Implications