The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond, a landmark case with potential ramifications for charter schools nationwide, including those in Hawaiʻi.

This case, the first of its kind to reach the Supreme Court, centers on whether Oklahoma can exclude a Catholic virtual school from its charter program, raising the fundamental question of whether charter schools are public or private entities.

For Hawaiʻi, where charter schools are considered public entities but face unique funding and due process challenges, this decision could have significant implications for their funding, autonomy, and oversight.

St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, sponsored by the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa, sought state funding as a charter school. The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board initially approved the application, but the Oklahoma attorney general challenged this, arguing that public funding of a religious school violates the establishment clause of the Oklahoma and U.S. constitutions.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with the attorney general, ruling that charter schools are public entities under state law and must remain nonsectarian. St. Isidore appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that their exclusion constitutes religious discrimination.

During oral arguments, St. Isidore and the Charter School Board argued that excluding the school is unconstitutional religious discrimination, citing the free exercise clause and recent Supreme Court precedents. They asserted that St. Isidore is a private entity seeking equal access to a public program.

The Oklahoma attorney general countered that charter schools are public entities under state law, exhibiting hallmarks of government entities: They are tuition-free, open to all, taxpayer-funded, and subject to state control. Allowing a religious charter school would violate the establishment clause by directly funding religious instruction in a public school.

Legally, public schools are generally defined as institutions established and funded by the state, open to all residents without tuition, while private schools are owned and operated by private entities, funded primarily by tuition. Charter schools, publicly funded but often privately managed, occupy a hybrid position. The federal definition under the Every Student Succeeds Act classifies charter schools as public and nonsectarian.

Differences In Funding

In Hawaiʻi, charter schools are considered public schools and are funded on a per-pupil allocation separate from the Department of Education. However, they receive less funding than traditional DOE schools, hindering their ability to offer the same range of programs and support services.

Furthermore, the unique autonomy of charter schools has led to a lack of clear due process, unlike traditional public schools. To address this, Hawaiʻi House Bill 901, which aimed to authorize public charter schools to appeal directly to the Board of Education, was introduced in 2025 but was not scheduled for a hearing by the Senate Education Committee.

Supreme Court precedents offer relevant context. Trinity Lutheran held that a state could not exclude a church-operated preschool from a public benefit program based on its religious status. Espinoza ruled that excluding religious schools from a tax credit scholarship program violated the free exercise clause. Carson v. Makin struck down Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from a tuition assistance program.

These cases suggest a trend towards protecting religious freedom in public programs.

A ruling that charter schools are private could lead to religious charter schools gaining access to public funding, potentially affecting existing funding for all charter schools and reducing regulatory oversight. It could also challenge the separation of church and state in education and impact the broader educational landscape by increasing the number of religious charter schools.

Expert opinions are divided. Some legal scholars believe the Supreme Court’s recent emphasis on religious freedom suggests a likely overturning of the Oklahoma ruling. Others, including the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and teachers’ unions, argue that charter schools are public and allowing religious charters would harm the public education system.

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court might be inclined to favor St. Isidore’s arguments, but the recusal of Justice Amy Coney Barrett introduces uncertainty.

Considering these factors, the likelihood of the Supreme Court ruling that charter schools are private in this case appears uncertain. The court might issue a narrow ruling specific to charter schools and the free exercise clause, requiring Oklahoma to include St. Isidore in its program.

However, the established public status of charter schools and establishment clause concerns present significant counterarguments. The final decision will likely hinge on the court’s balancing of religious freedom and the separation of church and state within the unique context of charter schools.