Special LIVE Episode: Vouchers in the budget bill, SCOTUS stops religious charter schools, and new decision on the Dept. of Education

In a conversation broadcast live on May 27, Amanda and Holly provide updates on a day of big news in the religious liberty world. They first look at the surprising 4-4 deadlock from the U.S. Supreme Court in the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, et al. v. Drummond case, which preserves a religious liberty principle by stopping the creation of the nation’s first religious charter school. They also discuss the troubling school voucher proposal that was slipped into the budget reconciliation bill that the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed on May 22, offering tips on how you can help stop it as it goes to the Senate. Plus, they give an update on last week’s court order stopping President Trump’s dismantling of the Department of Education and share why that’s good news for public education and religious freedom.

SHOW NOTES:

You can watch this episode on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/live/i8S3xcBTs14?feature=shared

Holly read the entire two sentence decision in the Drummond case, which is available on the Supreme Court’s website. You can also read Holly’s statement released the day of the Oklahoma v. Drummond decision on BJC’s website. 

The discussion of the budget reconciliation bill starts at 8:23. BJC has a website page with the latest on the bill and the actions you can take to stop it in the Senate. Visit BJConline.org/budgetbill2025 for more, including tips on finding a town hall to attend so you can connect with your lawmaker in person.

Click here to directly contact your U.S. Senators about the voucher provision, using our simple form.

Want to send us a video or an audio recording about why this budget bill would harm your community? Click here!

On May 22 – the same day the House passed the budget bill and the Supreme Court released its Drummond decision – U.S. District Judge Myong Joun granted a preliminary injunction stopping the Trump administration from dismantling the Department of Education. The conversation about this begins at 15:04.

Want to make sure you don’t miss future live episodes of the podcast? Subscribe to our email list to be notified of future shows, and follow us on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Bluesky, X, or LinkedIn.

Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

Transcript: Season 6, Special LIVE Episode: Vouchers in the budget bill, SCOTUS stops religious charter schools, and new decision on the Dept. of Ed. (some parts of this transcript have been edited for clarity)

AMANDA: What happened, Holly? We get this decision — and I think we have time, actually, for our listeners —
HOLLY: Let me read it. Let me read this.
AMANDA: You can actually read the whole decision. 
HOLLY: Don’t scare them, Amanda. We said we only had a few minutes!
AMANDA: (Laughing.)

 [MUSIC]

AMANDA: Well, good morning, and welcome to a special live episode of Respecting Religion. We hope everyone listening had a happy and safe Memorial Day weekend. I’m Amanda Tyler, executive director of BJC.

HOLLY: And I’m Holly Hollman, general counsel.

AMANDA: So, Holly, we’re trying something new this morning as we kick off summer.

HOLLY: It’s new.

AMANDA: Good to see you. And we’re doing this something new, because a lot happened last week in the world of religion and the law, and we wanted to not wait for a chance to have one of our more produced episodes to have a chance to sit down and talk. And so, Respecting Religion listeners, this is going to be a little bit different of an episode, because we are going to be going through kind of rapid fire some of the things that happened last week.

And the three things we want to talk about are, first, the House passed a very concerning budget bill which contains a national school voucher program, quietly tucked inside of it.

And while I was on a live webinar, discussing that, we got breaking news, Holly, that the Supreme Court surprised all of us by quickly releasing a decision in the religious charter school case, and that was just less than a month after they heard oral arguments in that case. And so we want to get a lead-off by talking about what happened there.

And then on that very same day, we got news that a federal court judge blocked President Trump’s bid to dismantle the Department of Education. So — lots to cover.

HOLLY: Lots to cover, but we’re just going to give you our quick reactions. Those of you who’ve been with us from the beginning know that part of the beginning of this podcast, the idea was to have a chance to go deeper on issues that go by quickly in the news. We can’t go too deep today, but we aren’t going to let the time pass without addressing these.

So all of these developments concern us, and they all concern, as we say, what’s at stake for faith freedom for all today in our rapidly changing context. And as you know, we’ve been deeply concerned about the Oklahoma charter school case.

BJC joined with other Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and interfaith groups to make our voice known in that case, and we particularly focused on the importance of the federal Establishment Clause, the part of the Constitution that has not received a lot of positive attention from this Supreme Court.

And in this case, it was a case about whether or not Oklahoma would be forced to sponsor a Catholic charter school. Charter schools are, of course, public schools, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court had said that under Oklahoma state law, under Oklahoma constitutional law, and under the federal Constitution — that this school could not go forward. But that case was taken up to the Supreme Court, joined with a case that the school itself brought. And, as you said, Amanda, it was quite a surprise that we got this decision so quickly.

AMANDA: So our last episode on the podcast, we broke down the oral arguments in this case. We talked about it as a blockbuster case. We talked about it as perhaps one of the most consequential cases — not just this term but in several years — and went through all the ramifications of what would happen if the Supreme Court issued a ruling for the charter school in this case, St. Isidore, a proposed Catholic charter school.

But we also talked about what we expected, and we said, you know, this was a little bit of an unusual case, because Justice Amy Coney Barrett had recused herself from the decision process and would not be taking part in it. And so that meant only eight justices were at issue. And we did say, look, if the justices tied, that that essentially was a win for the state of Oklahoma, because it would uphold the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling that had said that publicly-funded religious charter schools are unconstitutional.

And so what happened, Holly, we get this decision, and I think we have time actually for our listeners. You can actually read —

HOLLY: Let me read it.

AMANDA: — the whole decision.

HOLLY: Let me read it. Let me read this.

AMANDA: Okay.

HOLLY: Don’t scare them, Amanda. We said we only had a few minutes.

AMANDA: (Laughing.)

HOLLY: It was a per curiam decision, where the Court just issues a decision. Instead of being under any justice’s name, it’s from the Court. And it said, “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.” As I said, they were consolidated cases.

That is the only time I can ever remember in my long career at BJC talking to a public audience about what happened in a Court case and being able to read the whole opinion. You know, this Court is often deeply divided.  Occasionally we get a unanimous decision, but often deeply divided, and the law is complex, and you can have a lot of splintering that takes a long time to analyze.

But I think the bottom line here is not only, Amanda, did Oklahoma win — the case being brought by the Oklahoma attorney general — to say, This is not consistent with Oklahoma law. But I’d say that the Constitution won, the commitment to religious freedom for all that is protected by the Establishment Clause, complete with all of that history that led to its inclusion in our First Amendment.

I think it’s a win that the Court did not use this case to totally transform expectations about government funding of religious institutions and particularly religious formation and education, which is what this school proposed to advance with public funds, a fully evangelizing, mission-focused school, which if the Court had held that that was required, that, as anyone can see, would have major ramifications for expectations for public schools and religious liberty law.

AMANDA: Yeah. Absolutely. I love that. A win for public education, a win for pluralism and what public schools provide to our pluralistic democracy, but in a pretty surprising fashion, I think, or in a very quick resolution of that case.

HOLLY: That’s right.

AMANDA: It seems that when the justices first came back to their conference, perhaps, after that oral argument, they saw they were deadlocked, and the case was over.

HOLLY: That’s right. And, you know, we’ll continue to see good fights, debates about how to fund public education, about how to honor the fact that people can choose private schools, about the importance of religious education to families and individuals. But for now, it is good to know that the Court did not use this to upend further First Amendment law. And we will be watching to see what comes after this.

But, yeah. After oral arguments, things were not looking especially good, but we did highlight that, you know, the chief justice, who has had a prominent role in a line of cases that were at issue here, noticed that this was on a different level, different magnitude, more comprehensive, as he said.

Now, we don’t know which of the conservative justices voted, how they voted. We just know it’s 4-4, but that was one thing to note — that there was at least some awareness that this was a very significant case that threatened to be a major change. And we’re glad that the Court is not ready to do that.

AMANDA: Yeah. And so we’re just going to cross the street now from the Supreme Court to Congress and something —

HOLLY: Big week!

AMANDA: — very consequential is happening on Capitol Hill right now, and of course, that is Congress’s consideration of this budget reconciliation bill, something that President Trump is calling his “big, beautiful bill.” It is a big bill. I think many people would take issue with the “beautiful” part of it, because of its really harmful cuts that are impacting the most vulnerable, particularly Medicaid cuts, cuts to SNAP benefits, Medicare cuts. Lots is being dumped into this huge bill that the House of Representatives narrowly passed, by one vote, last week and is now under consideration in the Senate.

Something really unusual also in the way this bill was considered, with a lot of middle-of-the-night committee hearings and then floor action, really being passed kind of in the dead of night, something really unusual on Capitol Hill for that kind of all-night action to happen.

But why are we talking about it on Respecting Religion in particular is because we wanted to be sure that our listeners understood that inside this bill is a really harmful provision, basically creating a national school voucher program. That’s because this bill includes a new tax shelter that would allow wealthy donors a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for funding tuition scholarships to private schools. And, of course, that includes private religious schools.

This provision comes in at a cost of $5 billion, with a B, a year in public funds to private and religious schools, and it would be really a giveaway, particularly to the wealthiest donors, who would take advantage of these new provisions. Donors would be donating directly to something called a “scholarship granting organization.” And those donations would then get this dollar-for-dollar tax credit.

Now, I’m emphasizing “dollar-for-dollar” because that is unlike most donations. Like so if people give a donation to a 501(c)(3) organization, such as a church, a religious organization, even to BJC as a 501(c)(3) organization, they can, if they itemize their taxes, get, you know, a credit for that.

HOLLY: Yeah.

AMANDA: But it’s not a dollar-for-dollar. You don’t get a tax credit for every dollar that you give. It’s a much smaller amount, and so this is really rewarding donors with about three times as much in tax deductions than they would get for giving to other good causes, like food banks, houses of worship, and organizations that are serving the homeless.

HOLLY: Yeah. It’s remarkable, based on its size. It’s remarkable in that it’s taking a education policy funding debate and hiding it in a huge budget bill. And it, you know, really gets pretty far from the idea of just aiding “school choice,” which is what the proponents call it. And we all know that that doesn’t usually give choice to families. The choice is to schools.

And it’s really concerning that Congress would do this at a time when states that promote voucher programs continue to reject them. And so it’s an end run around, you know, good tax policy, appropriate educational reform and policy. And for anyone who spends a lot more time than we do now, Amanda, on the budget, a huge concern for this blow-up deficit — right? — that this is just another piece of ignoring sound fiscal policy.

AMANDA: Yeah. I mean, I’ve heard estimates that this bill overall could add up to $4 trillion, with a T, to the federal debt, and, of course, many different provisions in this bill. But just stripping this bill would help — right? — just stripping this provision out.

It’s no accident that it’s been added into this, because it just takes a simple majority on both sides to pass this bill, and as you know, Holly, these voucher provisions are very unpopular. Seventeen states have had a direct vote by the voters on whether they want a voucher program. Vouchers have failed in all 17 of those states.

So I was on a call last week that was organized to talk to reporters and members of the public. There was a parent from Kentucky on the call, and recently Kentucky had a vote. Not only did it fail across the state. Every county — every county rejected it in the state of Kentucky.

So this is — you know, there is bipartisan opposition to school vouchers, and there should be bipartisan outcry that it’s been included in this budget bill.

HOLLY: Yeah. And one thing I would add, Amanda, just because it’s particularly galling, because, of course, we are sympathetic and want to be educated about real education policy reform. But one thing that’s particularly galling is to just note that this is a benefit for people without regard to means, and that these vouchers, this tax benefit supports those who already have their kids in private schools. So it’s not a saving people from failing public schools kind of effort. This is continuing to fund private education with what should be public dollars.

AMANDA: That’s right. And we have much more information on our website. I just wanted to point people to BJConline.org/budgetbill2025. And there’s information there about how you can also contact your U.S. senators to ask them to reject this particular provision in the bill and ask them to strip it out of the bill.

We imagine that whatever the Senate considers will look very different than what the House passed last week, and then there’ll be another vote in the House. And so this battle over this bill is far from over, and so it’s time for people to get really engaged and contact their representatives now.

And so on this quick tour of what happened last week, something else happened on Thursday, May 22, and that’s we got a ruling in a case that had been filed in a federal court in Boston. The ruling is from U.S. District Judge Myong Joun who granted a preliminary injunction, stopping the Trump administration from dismantling the Department of Education.

Judge Joun issued an 88-page decision, granting a preliminary injunction, which includes a thorough analysis of the issues at hand in this early stage of litigation. We often talk about different court cases, Holly, and we note that at this stage, there hasn’t been a lot of discovery. You have kind of a pretty simple record in front of the judge, but they can do a pretty in-depth legal analysis at this stage to determine whether there’s a likelihood of success on the merits.

And Judge Joun found that what President Trump has been calling a mere reorganization of the Department of Education was actually an attempt to shut down the Department of Education, which we have noted numerous times, as well as many other people, that President Trump cannot do that without congressional authority and congressional action, and so this was over-extending his authority in doing these actions and having these mass layoffs at the Department of Education.

HOLLY: Yeah. And while this is a district court decision out of Massachusetts and a lot of powerful information about what this fight should be about, what the Department of Education is, what it does, how it was created by an act of Congress, and how this is — right now this seems to be an extension of executive power.

It also reminds me, Amanda, we were talking about all three branches of government having a role in protecting religious freedom for all, and we talked about the Supreme Court and Congress, and here we’re talking about the executive branch and the responsibility of the president to execute the laws but also to respect the other branches.

And so that’s really what’s at issue here, as well as in other departments — and as we said, this rapidly changing time — this is one of many similar kinds of disputes and issues. But, we note here that, you know, this was a massive layoff with total disregard for the importance of the Department of Education and what we’ve been talking about, the important role that public education plays in our country, across the country.

And, I note that at the beginning of that decision, the judge very helpfully talks about how the department was established in 1979 to have a single cabinet-level department that does so much to administer loans, to provide research and technological assistance to states and educational institutions, to distribute funds, and monitor and enforce basic compliance with law.

And we know that part of that compliance is religious freedom law, that public schools not only serve 90 percent of the population, but they do so in a way that respects faith freedom for all. They do so without regard to religion, and you can learn a lot about your neighbors and people of different faiths, and, you know, at the good schools, you hope that they learn about religion’s place in society, in history and literature.

But we don’t advance religion, do our primary religious education and teach people to be good Baptists or Catholics or Hindus or Buddhists or whatever in our public school system. Instead, they serve all, I think in a way that really exemplifies what the First Amendment was intended to do to protect religious freedom.

AMANDA: Absolutely. And the U.S. Department of Education plays a big role in supporting that. Now, education in general is something that is mostly controlled on the state and local level, but what the Department of Education does is provide needed resources, particularly to schools that serve students and families from low income backgrounds and also students with disabilities, as well as upholding the civil rights statutes in public schools, all incredibly important roles that the federal government plays.

I think that these firings at the Department of Education — Department of Education, by the way, is the smallest cabinet-level agency by a lot, and yet these firings were going to hit about half, cut the size of the department in half. And the judge here said that, quote, “the record abundantly reveals that defendant’s” — that is, the U.S. government’s — “true intention is to effectively dismantle the department without an authorizing statute.”

And the judge also said that the idea that the defendant’s actions are merely a, quote, “reorganization is plainly not true.” So very strong words from this federal judge. Of course, as expected, the Trump administration is appealing the ruling. We’ll be watching this closely, but again, another win for public education and for the important role that the U.S. Department of Education and those civil servants — you know, I think often we forget, the real people who serve in these roles, whose lives have been upended by the chaos created, but it really affirms the importance of these people and the jobs that they serve in.

HOLLY: Their work and the choices and sacrifices they’ve made in their careers to serve public education. And as we often say, public education and religious liberty go hand in hand, and we know that a weakening of the Department of Education, particularly one that is like this, without a lot of specificity but just a huge layoff, can really harm both public education and religious freedom.

AMANDA: Yeah. Well, thanks, Holly. Thanks for starting your work week with me in this live episode. Thanks to everyone who’s tuning in and to our listeners on the feed. This will be on the feed later on Tuesday.

We hope that everyone, if you’re not already, that you will follow the show Respecting Religion, wherever you get your podcasts, and join us for our next regularly scheduled episode later this week as well.