The U.S. Supreme Court essentially announced that it was evenly divided on the question of whether Oklahoma had to accept St. Isidore, a Catholic charter school applicant, to its charter school program. It would have been the first religious charter school in the nation, which would have been a threat to religious freedom for all.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court already decided that publicly funded religious charter schools are unconstitutional under both the Oklahoma and United States constitutions, and this case was challenging that decision. Because Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case, there were only eight justices voting in this decision. Five votes were needed to overturn the Oklahoma Supreme Court, but just four votes meant its ruling would remain in place. So, in issuing the 4-4 deadlock, the Court affirms the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling, and we will not have a religious charter school.

BJC filed a brief in Oklahoma v. Drummond to stop a proposed public charter school that would teach religion, evangelize students, and require employees to follow church doctrine. If religious charter schools become legal, states could fund schools that discriminate based on faith, identity or creed. That’s a betrayal of both public education and religious freedom.

The U.S. Supreme Court released an unsigned per curiam decision on May 22, 2025, noting they were deadlocked at 4-4; therefore, the lower court decision stands and Oklahoma will not fund this religious charter school. “The Supreme Court’s deadlock means an important principle remains intact: the government cannot operate a religious school, nor can it directly sponsor, promote, or pay for religious education,” BJC’s Holly Hollman said in a statement.

In a brief filed with the Court, BJC argued that our nation’s history and tradition of protecting religious liberty for all has long required that the government refrain from engaging in or directly funding religious education.  Reversing course now, BJC explained, would “forsake a foundational constitutional commitment.” The brief made it clear: “The state may not directly fund religious instruction. That line has long preserved both faith and freedom. It should be respected here.”

Many of the same questions and disagreements in this case may return to the Court in a future dispute. Advocates for public funding of religious instruction will no doubt continue their push, jeopardizing long-standing critical protections for the institutional separation of church and state in the process.

For now, though, the principled reasoning of the Oklahoma Supreme Court is the law of the land in that state.