Cnn
–
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether the states can reject schools to a religious charter to receive public funding, agreeing to hear arguments in a call to Oklahoma involving the first school of this type in the country.
The Catholic Virtual School St. Isidore of Seville applied last year to participate in the school program at Oklahoma Charter, which will give it the right to public funding. The State Superior Court reduced its approval in June, judging that charter schools must be non -sectarian and that St. Isidore “would evangelize the Catholic faith within the framework of its school program”.
The court’s decision could have great national implications by facilitating demand and more easily receive taxpayer money for schools. The case was closely monitored by groups promoting religious freedom.
“Oklahoma parents and children are better with more educational choices, no less,” said Jim Campbell, chief legal advisor of the Alliance defending Freedom, a religious legal group representing the school. “There is a great irony in the representatives of the State who claim to be in favor of discriminating religious freedom with regard to Saint-Isidore because of its Catholic beliefs.”
The court will probably hear the arguments this spring and will make a decision before July. Judge Amy CONEY BARRETT, a curator, challenged in the case without giving reason.
The conservative majority of the Supreme Court has been scruting from the line separating the Church and the State for years, especially in education. In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court said that states could not discriminate religious schools when financing taxpayers for certain programs.
Several groups opposing the school, including united Americans for separation from the Church and the State, urged the Supreme Court to assert the decision of the Court of the State against the School.
“The conversion of public schools into Sunday schools would be a dangerous sea change for our democracy,” the groups said in a joint statement.
The Oklahoma school and subsequent disputes divided the Conservatives. The Oklahoma Republican Prosecutor, Gentner, Drummond, filed one of the proceedings contesting the school.
“Today, Oklahomans are forced to finance Catholicism,” Drummond said in a statement last year. “Tomorrow, we could be forced to finance radical Muslim lessons like Sharia law.”
Phil Bacharach, spokesperson for Drummond, said in a brief statement that the office was planning to present its arguments to the Supreme Court.
St. Isidore argued that the Oklahoma Charter School Program “invited private educators to participate” and that religious schools refuse the possibility of participating in “religious hostility”.
While the Supreme Court adds its last cases of the current mandate, the administration of President Donald Trump reported on Friday that some may be deleted.
Lawyers from the Ministry of Justice asked the Supreme Court on Friday to suspend measures on four pending calls – including one implying strict rules on California vehicle emissions – in the first sign that the new administration is rethinking His business portfolio before the country’s highest jurisdiction.
Sarah Harris, the acting general solicitor of the Trump administration, urged the Supreme Court in a series of files to suspend the briefing in three cases dealing with the environment and which deals with the forgiveness of student loans when borrowers believe that ‘They were defrauded by a university.
The most important thing is a call for fuel companies contesting California’s capacity to establish, in practice, standards for admission to vehicles for the rest of the nation. Trump withdrew the power of the state to set these standards and the administration of President Joe Biden restored it. Friday’s deposit is the last indication that the Environmental Protection Agency under Trump would again take away the most difficult emission standards, which probably makes the legal dispute underlying the Supreme Court.
“After the change of administration, the actual administrator of the EPA determined that the agency should reassess the base and the solidity of the Biden administration decision, Harris told the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s file is, as usual, full of cases involving decisions and regulations of the federal government. Court observers have closely monitored the indications that Trump administration can move Biden’s position in highly publicized cases dealing with transgender rights, for example, or the repression of Food and Drug Administration against vaping products flavored. It is not yet clear if the new administration will take measures in these cases.
Trump quickly moved to retreat Biden’s political positions and the actions of the executives, but he can move more carefully to the Supreme Court – where judges generally are moving sudden travel from administration to administration.