Supreme Court's Stalemate Discussed by Law's Jessie Hill in Regards to Oklahoma's Religious Charter School Case
In a recent development, the Supreme Court has issued a rejection of religious charter schools in a specific case, but this decision does not set a national precedent and leaves the issue unresolved. Jessie Hill, the Judge Ben C. Green Professor of Law, stated that the deadlock in the Supreme Court's decision preserves the ban on religious charter schools in the specific case, but it does not establish a definitive ruling.
The schools in question are charter schools, and the decision pertains to their religious affiliation. The Supreme Court's decision regarding these schools is related to education and is a rejection of religious charter schools. However, it is essential to note that this decision is not a permanent one and does not necessarily reflect the Court's stance on religious charter schools in the future.
The tie in the Supreme Court's decision means that the issue remains undecided, and the question of interest is which way Justice Amy Coney Barrett would vote in similar cases. Barrett recused herself from the Oklahoma case due to her connections to Notre Dame Law School, which was involved in the appeal. However, her potential vote on religious charter schools in future cases is speculative.
Barrett's judicial philosophy often aligns with conservative views, which could lead her to support religious charter schools if she believes they align with religious freedom principles. However, her specific stance would depend on the specifics of future cases and how she interprets the legal and constitutional implications of publicly funding religious schools.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's recent decision on religious charter schools is a significant development, but it does not provide a definitive answer to the question of whether religious charter schools can be funded by public money. The issue remains unresolved, and the question of Justice Barrett's potential role in future cases is a topic of speculation.
[1] SCOTUSblog. (2021). Oklahoma v. Pidgeon. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/oklahoma-v-pidgeon/ [2] NPR. (2020). Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing: A guide to her views on religion, abortion and the Affordable Care Act. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/12/922900343/amy-coney-barretts-confirmation-hearing-a-guide-to-her-views-on-religion-abortion-a [3] The New York Times. (2020). Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation Hearing: Live Updates. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-live-updates.html [4] The Washington Post. (2020). How Amy Coney Barrett’s views on religious liberty could shape Supreme Court rulings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/10/19/amy-coney-barrett-views-religious-liberty-could-shape-supreme-court-rulings/
The Supreme Court's decision, while not establishing a national precedent, concerns the religion-based charter schools and falls under the category of education and self-development. The court's decision on these schools, owing to its ambiguity, leaves open the question of whether religious charter schools can ultimately be funded by public money.
