Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond | Case No. 24-394 | Date Argued: 4/30/25

This Court has "repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits." Carson as next friend of O. C. v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767, 778 (2022). Three times, the Court has applied that principle to strike down "state efforts to withhold otherwise available public benefits from religious organizations." Id. at 778-79 (citing Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. 449 (2017); Espinoza v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue, 591 U.S. 464 (2020)).

Contrary to those precedents, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a state can exclude privately owned and operated religious charter schools from its charter-school program by enforcing state-law bans on "sectarian" and religiously affiliated charter schools. The court also held that a charter school engages in state action for constitutional purposes when it contracts with the state to provide publicly funded education.

These rulings implicate an entrenched circuit split and present two questions for review:

1. Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students.

2. Whether a state violates the Free Exercise Clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state's charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or whether a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the Establishment Clause requires.

Consolidated with St. Isidore of Seville Sch. v. Drummond, Case No. 24-396.

HOST NOTE: Justice Barrett did not participate in this case. Also, you'll notice that two separate government lawyers argued in this case, making a total of four oral argument participants.

TIMESTAMPS

00:00 Introduction

00:08 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins

2:00 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begins

11:10 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin

37:16 Petitioner Questions End, United States, Amicus Curiae Opening Statement Begins

38:28 United States, Amicus Curiae Free for All Questions Begin

44:57 United States, Amicus Curiae Sequential Questions Begin

58:15, United States, Amicus Curiae Questions End, Government Opening Statement Begins

59:13 Government Free for All Questions Begin

1:08:32 Government Sequential Questions Begin

1:17:33 Government Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins

1:20:01 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin

1:48:30 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin

2:08:50 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Reply Begins

COUNSEL

Argued. For petitioners in 24-394: James A. Campbell, Lansdowne, Va. For petitioner in 24-396: Michael H. McGinley, Washington, D. C. For United States, as amicus curiae: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Gregory G. Garre, Washington, D.C. VIDED.