Oral Argument: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond | Case No. 24-394 | Date Argued: 4/30/25

Oral Argument: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond | Case No. 24-394 | Date Argued: 4/30/25

Case Info: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond | Case No. 24-394 | Date Argued: 4/30/25 | 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.

Holding: The entire opinion reads: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 4-4. Per Curiam Opinion.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Host Notes: Justice Barrett did not participate in this case. Also, this case was consolidated with St. Isidore of Seville Sch. v. Drummond, Case No. 24-396.

Oral Advocates:

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

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction

00:08 Petitioner (in 24-394) Opening Statement Begins

2:00 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begins

11:10 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin

37:16 Petitioner Questions End, Petitioner (in 24-396) Opening Statement Begins

38:28 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin

44:57 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin

58:15, Petitioner Questions End, Government (as Amicus Curiae) Opening Statement Begins

59:13 Government Free for All Questions Begin

1:08:32 Government Sequential Questions Begin

1:17:33 Government Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins

1:20:01 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin

1:48:30 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin

2:08:50 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Rebuttal Begins

Det här avsnittet är hämtat från ett öppet RSS-flöde och publiceras inte av Podme. Det kan innehålla reklam.

Avsnitt(500)

Opinion Summary: Monsanto v. Durnell | Court Axes Roundup Cancer Suits

Opinion Summary: Monsanto v. Durnell | Court Axes Roundup Cancer Suits

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell | Case No. 24-1068 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 27, 2026 | Decided: June 25, 2026Overview: Federal pesticide law blocks a Missouri cancer patient's failure-to-warn lawsu...

2 Juli 15min

Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Doe | No Judge. No TPS. No Way Back.

Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Doe | No Judge. No TPS. No Way Back.

Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Doe, et al. | No. 25-1083 (consolidated with Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Miot, et al., No. 25-1084) | Docket: Here | ...

1 Juli 16min

New Opinions: June 30th | 3 Blockbusters End the Term

New Opinions: June 30th | 3 Blockbusters End the Term

OVERVIEWThree opinions released June 30th, 2026 — the final day of the October 2025 Term — spanning birthright citizenship, transgender athletes in school sports, and political party campaign spending...

30 Juni 13min

Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado | The Inch That Changed Immigration Law

Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado | The Inch That Changed Immigration Law

Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Al Otro Lado, et al. | Case No. 25-5 | Docket Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5.html | Argu...

30 Juni 14min

New Opinions: June 29th |  Phones, the Fed, the FTC, and the Ballot Box

New Opinions: June 29th | Phones, the Fed, the FTC, and the Ballot Box

OVERVIEWFour opinions released June 29th, 2026 — one day, across digital privacy, presidential removal power at two federal agencies, and absentee ballot receipt deadlines.Two decisions split 6-3 alon...

29 Juni 18min

Opinion Summary: Wolford v. Lopez | Permission Slip Flopped

Opinion Summary: Wolford v. Lopez | Permission Slip Flopped

Wolford v. Lopez | Case No. 24-1046 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: January 20, 2026 | Decided: June 25, 2026Overview: After Bruen recognized the right to public carry, Hawaii required licensed gun carr...

29 Juni 13min

Opinion Summary: Blanche v. Lau | Seize Green Cards First and Prove Why Later

Opinion Summary: Blanche v. Lau | Seize Green Cards First and Prove Why Later

Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Muk Choi Lau | Case No. 25-429 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 22, 2026 | Decided: June 23, 2026Overview: The Court addressed whether border officers must posse...

28 Juni 15min

Opinion Summary: Pung v. Isabella County | Small Debt, Tiny Check

Opinion Summary: Pung v. Isabella County | Small Debt, Tiny Check

Pung v. Isabella County | Case No. 25-95 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 02/25/2026 | Decided: 06/23/2026Overview: A Michigan family lost their $194,400 home at a tax auction for $76,008 over a disputed...

27 Juni 19min

Populärt inom Business & ekonomi

framgangspodden
rss-jossan-nina
varvet
rss-borsens-finest
badfluence
24fragor
svd-tech-brief
avanzapodden
uppgang-och-fall
bathina-en-podcast
lastbilspodden
rss-inga-dumma-fragor-om-pengar
rikatillsammans-om-privatekonomi-rikedom-i-livet
rss-kort-lang-analyspodden-fran-di
fill-or-kill
rss-hos-psykologen
tabberaset
kapitalet-en-podd-om-ekonomi
rss-dagen-med-di
rss-veckans-trade