Connect with us

The Center Square

SCOTUS decision on religious charter schools will carry widespread ramifications | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Thérèse Boudreaux – (The Center Square – ) 2025-05-04 07:49:00

(The Center Square) – In a case that could have major implications for the American public school system, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether religious charter schools, which are taxpayer-funded, are constitutional.

The St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond case involves a 2023 decision by the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board to allow St. Isidore to join the dozens of charter schools in the state.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the charter school board, arguing that allowing St. Isidore to join the public charter school program amounts to state-sponsoring of religion.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in Drummond’s favor, but St. Isidore is arguing before the Supreme Court that contracting with the state to provide free and public education options as a privately run entity does not mean its religious activities constitute “state actions.”

Lori Windham from Becket law firm, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of St. Isidore, told The Center Square that a major question in the case is whether charter schools are closer to traditional public schools or instead function as private schools that are eligible for public funds like scholarships.

“There are already a lot of programs that taxpayers fund for things like federal student loans or federal scholarships that go to religious schools and non-religious schools alike,” Windham said. “Funds to help disabled students, funds to help schools have better security measures to prevent school shootings and hate crime – those go to religious schools and non-religious schools alike.”

“So in that way, this charter school isn’t so different from lots of other programs that are out there where many different people can come in and ask to be part of that program, regardless of whether they’re religious or not,” she added.

Though identifying as a Catholic school, St. Isidore accepts nonreligious students and does not require a statement of faith. Accordingly, the school also argues that an exclusion of St. Isidore from the state’s charter school program, simply because it is religious, violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. 

“When you have a generally available program, you can’t kick out religious people or religious groups just for being religious. You have to allow them to compete on the same basis as everybody else,” Windham told The Center Square. “And that’s the main argument that the charter school is making here, that they’re just trying to compete for that charter on the same basis as any other private group who wants to start running a school as part of that program.”

If precedent is any indication, St. Isidore has a high chance of winning the case. In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned the state of Maine’s ban on state tuition assistance to students attending religious schools.

But if SCOTUS does rule in Drummond’s favor, other areas where religious students and schools are currently receiving state funds – such as assistance for students with disabilities – could be jeopardized.

The post SCOTUS decision on religious charter schools will carry widespread ramifications | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

The article provides a neutral, factual account of the ongoing legal case regarding the constitutionality of religious charter schools receiving taxpayer funding. It reports on the positions of the involved parties—the Oklahoma Attorney General, St. Isidore Catholic School, and supporting legal entities—without promoting a particular ideological stance. The language and framing remain impartial, presenting both sides of the argument, including legal perspectives and potential consequences for public funding programs. The content does not lean toward a specific political ideology but outlines the facts of the case and the broader implications, ensuring that it adheres to balanced reporting.

News from the South - Texas News Feed

Eight Circuit judges reject Abbott’s rational for vetoing THC ban | Texas

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By Bethany Blankley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-24 17:21:00


The Texas Legislature passed SB 3 to ban THC statewide, but Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed it, citing likely constitutional challenges and court delays similar to Arkansas’ stalled THC ban. Abbott proposed regulating THC like alcohol instead. However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton challenged Abbott’s claims, citing federal law permitting states to ban THC, with court precedents from the Fourth and Seventh Circuits and states like California and Colorado supporting such bans. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s injunction blocking Arkansas’ THC ban, affirming states’ rights under the 2018 Farm Bill to regulate or ban hemp. Paxton confirmed SB 3 would be reintroduced. Abbott scheduled a special session to consider regulations, though many Texas Republicans oppose legalizing marijuana.

(The Center Square) – Several of the reasons Gov. Greg Abbott made for vetoing a statewide THC ban, SB 3, were rejected Tuesday by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Texas legislature overwhelmingly passed SB 3 with bipartisan support during the regular legislative session. Late Sunday night, Abbott vetoed it.

In his proclamation explaining the veto, he said SB 3 was “well-intentioned. But it would never go into effect because of valid constitutional challenges.” If it were enacted, “its enforcement would be enjoined for years, leaving existing abuses unaddressed,” he said, adding that “Texas cannot afford to wait.”

He pointed to Arkansas enacting a THC ban in 2023, Act 629, which was challenged in court. A lower court halted it from going into effect, arguing it would “likely [be] preempted by federal statutes and that its criminal provisions were likely unconstitutionally vague,” Abbott said. “The result in Arkansas? Their law has sat dormant, meaningless, having no effect for nearly two years while further legal proceedings play out. That result must be avoided in Texas,” Abbott said. Instead, he proposed regulating THC similar to how alcohol is regulated.

On Monday, Patrick challenged each of Abbott’s arguments, saying they were flawed and factually inaccurate. Federal law expressly permits states to impose their own restrictions, including banning THC, Patrick said. He also said the Fourth and Seventh circuits have ruled as much and California and Colorado banned THC with no problems, The Center Square reported.

He said he believed the 8th Circuit would rule in favor of Arkansas.

One day later, it did.

On Tuesday, a panel of judges on the Eighth Circuit, including the chief judge, reversed the lower court’s injunction.

The judges also confirmed Patrick’s argument, stating in their 16-page ruling that nothing in the 2018 Farm Bill “preempts or limits any law of a State or Indian tribe that … regulates production of hemp and is more stringent than this subchapter.”

They also said the Arkansas Supreme Court would reach the same conclusion they did.

“We predict that the Arkansas Supreme Court would hold that” a provision, the saving’s clause, was upheld in the law, agreeing with the state.

The judges rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the state’s ban prohibited interstate commerce of hemp products, also saying, “We predict the Arkansas Supreme Court would adopt our understanding of the phrase ‘continuous transportation.’ Any more of a restrictive understanding would mean that Act 629 would violate the 2018 Farm Bill’s Express Preemption Clause.”

The judges also point out that the “text of the 2018 Farm Bill shows only that Congress wanted to facilitate state legalization of hemp, if a state wants to. Congress allows states to legalize hemp by removing the biggest hurdle – federal criminalization.”

The text of the 2018 Farm Bill “does not support” the plaintiff’s claim “that Congress intended to ‘federally protect[] hemp’ and coercively mandate nationwide legality,” the judges said. “States may obtain primary regulatory authority over hemp production,” including banning it.

“Instead, just because states may legalize hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill does not mean they must,” the judges note.

The judges also rejected the argument Abbott cited, saying the Arkansas bill “is not unconstitutionally vague and the district court abused its discretion when it issued a preliminary injunction based on the statute being void for vagueness.”

In response to the ruling, Patrick said the court ruled the way he believed it would and the Texas Senate would reintroduce SB 3 and the state legislature would pass it again.

Abbott called a special session for next month, adding SB 3 to the agenda, suggesting that the legislature implement a series of regulations to legalize THC.

The Republican Party of Texas opposes legalizing marijuana; the majority of Republicans in the legislature voted to ban it, not regulate it.

When the legislature convenes next month, Patrick said, “All we have to do is pass SB 3, just like we passed during the regular session.”

The post Eight Circuit judges reject Abbott’s rational for vetoing THC ban | Texas appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

The article presents a factual account of the political and legal developments surrounding Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s veto of SB 3, a bill to ban THC statewide, and the subsequent court rulings that challenged the reasons given for the veto. The language is neutral and descriptive, simply reporting statements made by Governor Abbott and Representative Patrick, as well as the court’s findings, without endorsing either side’s position. It balances perspectives from both the executive branch and the legislature, noting bipartisan support for the bill while highlighting the Republican Party’s opposition to legalization. The article refrains from emotive or opinionated language, focusing on facts and legal interpretations rather than advocating for or against the THC ban or legalization. Thus, it functions primarily as neutral reporting on ideological positions rather than promoting an ideological stance itself.

Continue Reading

News from the South - Florida News Feed

DeSantis signs bill into law that ensures public access to Florida beaches | Florida

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By Steve Wilson | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-24 14:15:00


Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 1622, restoring local authority to allow public access to privately owned beaches and ending restrictions from a 2018 law that limited “customary use” ordinances. The 2018 law arose after property owners sued Walton County over its ordinance protecting public recreational use of dry sand areas, leading to prolonged litigation. The new bill simplifies beach restoration efforts and permits cities and counties to adopt ordinances allowing activities like walking, fishing, and sunbathing without judicial approval. Senator Jay Trumbull emphasized the bill’s importance in preserving family traditions and public beach access in Florida.

(The Center Square) – With one signature by Gov. Ron DeSantis, visitors to Florida will no longer have to worry about potential trespassing charges for walking on the beach.

The governor signed Senate Bill 1622 on Tuesday, which overrides a 2018 law that limited public access to privately-owned beaches and prohibited counties from passage of “customary use” ordinances that allowed beach access.

The measure also streamlines beach restoration efforts. 

“By repealing the law, we return the authority back to local communities,” DeSantis said at a signing ceremony in Santa Rosa Beach. “Cities and counties can now adopt ordinances recognizing recreational customary use, walking, fishing, sunbathing, swimming, without having to obtain a judicial declaration. This bill is about restoring local control, cutting legal red tape and putting our residents first, but it goes even further to strengthen our coastal communities.”

The 2018 law came about after property owners sued Walton County and its commission over its “customary use” ordinance passed in 2016 that said “the public’s long-standing customary use of the dry sand areas of all of the beaches in the county for recreational purposes is hereby protected.”

This sand area extended from the toe of sand dunes to the high-water line. 

The law required cities and counties to apply any “customary use” ordinances parcel by parcel, a long and laborious process that invited litigation by landowners. 

It also resulted in a lawsuit by Walton County against property owners over implementation of “customary use” rights in 2018 that was resolved in 2023 after five years of litigation. 

Sen. Jay Trumbull, the bill’s sponsor who represents all or parts of Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, Jackson, Washington and Calhoun counties, said while Walton County has 26 miles of coastline, only seven of that is publicly accessible.

“This bill is much more about much more than policy,” the Panama City Republican said. “It’s about families, it’s about tradition, and it’s about restoring something that never should have been taken away in the first place. Back in 2018 when the state passed a law that blocked local governments from recognizing customary use of beaches, no one felt that impact more severely than Walton County. Overnight, people who had walked the same stretch of dry beach for generations were being told that they were trespassing. This is that’s not the Walton County, I know, and it’s not the Florida I believe in.

“The people here weren’t asked for anything unreasonable. They just wanted to keep doing what they’ve always done, walk the beach, toss a football, build a sand castle with their families, and instead, they got confused, conflict and courtroom battles all to protect a simple, time-honored way of life.”

The post DeSantis signs bill into law that ensures public access to Florida beaches | Florida appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The article primarily reports on the signing of Senate Bill 1622 by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, presenting the legislative change in a factual manner while including supportive quotes from the governor and Republican Sen. Jay Trumbull. The tone and language emphasize themes of local control, tradition, and opposition to legal red tape, which align with conservative values favoring limited government intervention and property rights balanced with public access. While the article does not overtly editorialize, the selection of quotes and framing around “restoring something that never should have been taken away” reflects a subtle leaning toward conservative viewpoints without strong ideological advocacy. Overall, it adheres mostly to reporting but with a slight center-right perspective through tone and source emphasis.

Continue Reading

News from the South - North Carolina News Feed

North Carolina Democrats seek embargo of U.S. military aid to Israel | North Carolina

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-24 09:24:00


The North Carolina Democratic Party is considering a resolution to immediately embargo all U.S. military aid, weapons shipments, and logistical support to Israel. The resolution accuses Israel of apartheid and genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, citing attacks on civilians and humanitarian sites. It references polling showing 59% of Democrats support Palestinians, with 62% of young Democrats backing an arms embargo. The embargo would remain until human rights groups confirm Israel no longer practices apartheid. The party’s State Executive Committee will discuss this Saturday at AB Technical Community College in Asheville. The resolution reflects shifting opinions within the party amidst ongoing conflict.

(The Center Square) – An immediate embargo on all military aid, weapons shipments and military logistical support to Israel is within a favored package of resolutions under consideration by the North Carolina Democratic Party.

The State Executive Committee meets on Saturday in Asheville, and a platform and resolutions committee report is on the tentative agenda. The resolution declares Israel guilty of apartheid against Palestinians; genocide in Gaza; and using American weapons in “self defense” against hospitals, schools, homes, refugee camps, mosques, churches, journalists and humanitarian aid workers.

Further, it cites Gallop polling saying Democrats support Palestinian people (59%) and that Israel’s “assault on Gaza” was the primary reason (29%) that people voting for President Joe Biden did not vote in 2024. It says 62% of young Democrats “support an arms embargo.”

The Center Square was unsuccessful prior to publication of getting comments from Anderson Clayton. She is the state party chairwoman.

The language says the embargo would be supported until “Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’tselem certify that Israel is no longer engaged in apartheid rule.”

The United States has long been an ally of Israel in the Middle East, including being the first to recognize it as an independent state in 1948 under President Harry Truman. History, economy, politics and culture are pivotal ties to the Jewish homeland.

The meeting of Democrats on the campus of AB Technical Community College requires credentials. It begins at 9:30 a.m.

The post North Carolina Democrats seek embargo of U.S. military aid to Israel | North Carolina appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

The article primarily reports on a specific resolution under consideration by the North Carolina Democratic Party regarding military aid to Israel and their characterization of Israel’s actions. While the piece includes factual information about the resolution’s content, polling data, and a brief historical context about U.S.-Israel relations, the language used in quoting the resolution (such as “Israel guilty of apartheid” and “genocide in Gaza”) reflects a critical stance toward Israel, consistent with some left-leaning critiques. The article itself does not appear to independently endorse these views but highlights them as part of the Democrats’ platform debate. However, the choice to focus extensively on this controversial resolution without presenting opposing perspectives or broader context beyond a brief historical note somewhat aligns the tone with a center-left viewpoint, which often scrutinizes Israeli government policies. Overall, the piece leans toward a center-left bias through its framing and content selection, while largely maintaining a factual reporting style rather than an overt ideological argument.

Continue Reading

Trending