APRIL 2025 | 13 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL maintains it will be Catholic in all aspects, including church-based policies in admissions and operations that could potentially be challenged as discriminatory. St. Isidore also asserts it is a private – not public – school, despite Oklahoma’s statutory definition of a charter school. The court could also object to the state providing funding to a religious institution in such a direct way, as opposed to the indirect government funding it has upheld in cases involving tax credits or vouchers to attend private religious schools. CONCLUSION After looking at the types of religion-in-schools cases the Supreme Court has heard, analyzing the kinds of cases in which the court has been activist or restraintist and considering its tendencies to be separationist, neutralist or accommodationist, we may be able to predict the court’s decision in St. Isidore more accurately than we could a hand of poker. But courts aren’t casinos. We don’t go there for the entertainment value or the loose slots. We go to the court for justice and to keep the constitution alive in our laws and policies. In that endeavor, may the odds be forever in our favor. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Brent Rowland is the legal director and one of the attorneys for the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice (OK Appleseed), a public interest organization based in Tulsa. OK Appleseed works through community organizing, legislative advocacy and litigation in the areas of education, youth and criminal justice to protect the rights of and promote opportunities for all Oklahomans. Mr. Rowland is a graduate of the TU College of Law. ENDNOTES 1. The Oklahoman, https://bit.ly/41Fh7NS, (last visited Nov. 29, 2024). 2. Okla. Statewide Charter Sch. Bd. v. Drummond, Docket No. 24-294, SCOTUSblog, https://bit.ly/43gGBlC, (last visited Nov. 29, 2024) (awaiting certiorari at the time of writing, Dec. 3, 2024). 3. U.S. Constitution, Amendment I. 4. Rebecca E. Zietlow, “The Judicial Restraint of the Warren Court (and Why It Matters),” 69 Ohio State L. J. 255 (2008). 5. Fern Fisher, “Moving Toward a More Perfect World: Achieving Equal Access to Justice Through a New Definition of Judicial Activism,” 17 CUNY L. Rev. 285 (2014), citing Keenan D. Kmiec, “The Origin and Current Meanings of ‘Judicial Activism,’” 92 Calif. L. R. 1441 (2004). 6. Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law 1524, Aspen Publ’g (7th ed. 2024). 7. Id. 8. Id. 9. Id. quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). 10. Id. at 1527. 11. Id. 12. See Figure 1: Comparison of Religion-inSchools Cases. 13. Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 142 S. Ct. 2407, 213 L. Ed. 2d 755 (2022). 14. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 115 S. Ct. 2510, 132 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1995). 15. Formerly the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board. 16. Drummond ex rel. State v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter Sch. Bd., 2024 OK 53, 558 P.3d 1. 17. Id. at 6. 18. Id. 19. Id. at 7-9. 20. Id. at 10, citing Oliver v. Hofmeister, 2016 OK 15, 368 P.3d 1270. 21. See generally Ward M. McAfee, “The Historical Context of the Failed Federal Blaine Amendment of 1876,” 2 First Amend. L. Rev 1 (2003), available at https://bit.ly/3EW58m7. See also Frederick M. Gedicks, “Reconstructing the Blaine Amendments,” 2 First Amend. L. Rev. 85 (2003), available at https://bit.ly/3EW5clR (explaining state Blaine Amendments in light of recent U.S. Sup. Ct. decisions). Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==