In America: Has Church & State Merged into One? SCOTUS, Oklahoma & Texas State Legislature Explained
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling and Texas’s push for Ten Commandments posters suggest public schools might be flirting with a lot more than just education.
In a turning point for America’s separation between church and state, the Supreme Court handed down a 4-4 ruling, thereby upholding The Oklahoma State Supreme Court’s ruling in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond. This ruling upheld the state’s decision to withhold funding for St Isidore, a Catholic virtual school first set up during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, owing to Justice Amy Coney-Barett’s recusal, and the resulting 4-4 split decision, no national precedent was set. This means that any state can choose to pursue similar action and hope for a different result.
Meanwhile, south of Oklahoma, Texas governor Greg Abbot is set to sign and pass S.B. 10, the controversial bill that intends to display the 10 commandments of Christianity in every Texas public school. S.B. 10 mandates the commandments be at least 16”x20” and displayed prominently. The bill has ignited fierce debate, with critics arguing it violates the First Amendment and risks turning public schools into platforms for religious indoctrination. Supporters, primarily conservative lawmakers, claim it reinforces moral values foundational to American society. These contrasting developments highlight a growing national divide over religion’s role in public education, raising questions about constitutional protections, religious freedom, and the potential for political evangelism.
What Is A Charter School? And How Is It Different From A Public School?
Charter schools and traditional public schools share key traits but differ in ways that are central to these legal battles. Both receive taxpayer dollars, are open to all students, and are subject to government oversight. However, charter schools, often managed by private organizations or non-profits, enjoy greater autonomy in curriculum and operations. Public schools are directly run by the government and strictly regulated.
In Drummond, the Oklahoma Supreme Court clarified that charter schools, despite their autonomy, are public entities and must adhere to the same constitutional restrictions as traditional public schools, particularly regarding the establishment of religion. The court ruled that funding St. Isidore would violate Oklahoma’s requirement for non-sectarian public education, a decision The U.S. Supreme Court upheld. This distinction is critical, as it underscores that charter schools cannot bypass constitutional limits on religious endorsement, even with their operational flexibility.
The Freedom Of Religious Expression
The First Amendment’s Religion Clauses—the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government endorsement of religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which protects religious practice—are at the core of these cases. In public education, these clauses require schools to remain neutral, neither promoting nor discriminating against religion.
In Drummond, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board argued that excluding St. Isidore from public funding violated the Free Exercise Clause by discriminating against religious organizations. They referenced cases such as Carson v. Makin (2022), which mandated that Maine’s voucher program include religious schools. However, the courts ruled that funding a religious charter school would amount to state endorsement of religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause. This decision is consistent with precedents like Stone v. Graham (1980), which invalidated a Kentucky law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools, as it lacked a secular purpose.
The Freedom From Religious Indoctrination
The Establishment Clause not only prevents government endorsement of religion but also protects individuals from religious indoctrination in public settings. In Drummond, the concern was that St. Isidore’s Catholic curriculum, funded by public money, would promote religious teachings to a captive audience of students. Most of whom will be too young to evaluate the teachings critically. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, ruling that such funding would violate the state’s non-sectarian education mandate.
Texas’s Senate Bill 10 raises similar concerns. By mandating the Ten Commandments displayed in every classroom, the bill risks creating an environment where students, particularly those from minority faiths or no faith, feel pressured to conform to a specific religious tradition. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Stone v. Graham emphasized that such displays lack a secular purpose and can coerce students, especially younger ones, into accepting religious teachings. Critics argue that Texas’s bill prioritizes one religious perspective, potentially alienating diverse students and undermining the inclusive nature of public education.
The Arguments Made in Court
The school board that controls St Isidore, represented by a slew of lawyers, argued that denying monetary support to the school was a form of discrimination. They contend that St Isidore’s autonomy as a charter school must extend to the “religious elements,” of education, much like private schools. They cited Carson v. Makin and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) to make the case for the alleged discrimination. The board’s position is representative of a broader push for further inclusion of religion as a part of daily life, as set out by the unofficial mandate for the White House, Project 2025.
Oklahoma state’s Attorney General, Gentner Drummond argued that funding the school would a constitutional violation at both a state and federal level. He reaffirmed that St. Isidore’s receiving of public funding would be picking a side in what should remain a non-sectarian organisation owing to public funds. He cited Locke v Davey (2004) which upheld The State of Washington’s right to deny religious training on the public’s dime as that would be a breach of the strictly non-sectarian stance that all public offices must uphold.
Evangelism as a political tool & Indoctrination
Project 2025’s outline for expounding religion in public life to root out “evils,” like homosexuality, transgender identity and “DEI,” is exemplified by Texas’ move. The bill, sponsored 24 Texan Republicans and 1 Texan Democrat, is also co-sponsored by at least 50 other House Republicans, is allegedly a way to “instil moral values”. Rep. Candy Noble (R-TX) said, “It is incumbent on all of us to follow God’s law, and I think we would all be better off if we did.” State Sen. Donna Campbell (R-TX) said, “The Ten Commandments should be posted in every schoolroom, unapologetically taught as a foundation of America. It is who we are. It is our history.”
Except for the fact that the Ten Commandments were found by Moses, an Egyptian, who mythology says found the commandments in Mt. Sinai, located in Egypt.
However, critics like Rep. James Talarico (D-TX) sees these efforts as political manoeuvres, “This bill is not only unconstitutional, it’s not only un-American, I think it is also deeply un-Christian. And I say that because I am a Christian, and I believe that the Ten Commandments are sacred. They are holy. They are not for the state to co-opt for political purposes.” The ACLU of Texas has vowed to sue, asserting, “We will not allow Texas lawmakers to divide communities along religious lines and attempt to turn public schools into Sunday schools.”