The U.S. Supreme Court’s 4-4 deadlock on May 22 halted the creation of the nation’s first religious charter school, leaving in place a lower court ruling and sidestepping a potentially landmark decision on public education and religious freedom.
Had the justices allowed the school to proceed, it could have significantly redefined long-standing boundaries between church and state in the American education system.
Still, two more religion-related cases remain on the Court’s docket—one involving public school curriculum and another concerning tax exemptions for religious organizations. Legal scholars say both could have far-reaching implications for how religious liberty is interpreted in the United States.
“These are very significant cases, each in its own right,” said Daniel Conkle, professor emeritus at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law. He noted that the Court has increasingly taken steps to bolster protections for the free exercise of religion.
Much of that momentum, experts say, can be traced to a broader ideological shift on the Court in recent years—largely shaped by the addition of three conservative justices appointed by former President Donald Trump.
“There’s been an almost complete ideological transformation,” said Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at the UCLA School of Law.
The current Court, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, tends to interpret the First Amendment with a narrow view of the establishment clause—which bars government endorsement of religion—and a much broader view of the free exercise clause, which protects individuals’ rights to practice their faith.
Under prevailing legal standards, the government cannot interfere with religious practices unless doing so addresses a compelling public interest or prevents harm to public morals.
The Court’s forthcoming decisions will offer clearer insight into whether its current trajectory—favoring expansive religious liberty protections—will persist.
Parental Rights and Religious Freedom: Supreme Court Weighs Major Cases on Education and Tax Exemptions
“Anybody who’s run a school knows you can’t provide individualized, tailored instruction to every kid based on that kid’s parents’ religious viewpoints,” said Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
That concern lies at the heart of a pending Supreme Court case in Maryland, where parents argue for the right to opt their children out of certain public school lessons that conflict with their religious beliefs.
The case raises not just constitutional questions but logistical ones as well—such as who supervises students removed from class and how schools can substitute materials that align with parents’ faith-based objections without disrupting public education standards.
Daniel Conkle, a professor emeritus at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, referenced the Court’s 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder, which allowed Amish families to withdraw children from school after eighth grade based on religious beliefs. However, he noted the Maryland case poses a more complex challenge.
“If the court rules in favor of these parents, it could impose a significantly greater administrative burden than Yoder ever did,” Conkle said. Granting broad opt-out rights could make it far more difficult for public schools to operate efficiently. “There’s a real risk of administrative headaches,” he added, particularly compared to parents simply withdrawing their children from public education entirely.
“Can public schools really function in that kind of cafeteria-line way?” asked Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law.
During oral arguments, Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern about the broader implications of an expansive opt-out right, asking what it would mean if parents could refuse participation in virtually any part of the curriculum.
But Eric Baxter, attorney for the petitioning parents, dismissed fears of excessive litigation. “We just don’t see these kinds of extreme cases,” he said. “Parents aren’t eager to sue their school boards—they want reasonable compromise.”
Supporters of the parents’ case say their fears are well-founded. In an amicus brief, Protect the First Foundation and others argued that parents worry public schools may undermine the values they teach at home. Another brief—filed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and others—called for what they described as “modest accommodations,” such as notifying parents of new reading materials and allowing them to opt out. They emphasized that many parents feel a religious duty to guide their children’s understanding of topics like marriage, sexuality, and gender.
Meanwhile, a second religion-related case before the Court addresses whether a Catholic charity in Wisconsin must pay into the state’s unemployment system—a tax from which religious institutions are generally exempt.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court previously ruled against Catholic Charities, finding its activities too secular to qualify for exemption. But U.S. Supreme Court justices, across ideological lines, appeared sympathetic to the charity’s claim of religious discrimination, according to SCOTUSblog.
“This issue is conceptually quite important,” said UCLA professor emeritus Eugene Volokh, though he noted the ruling may have narrower implications than the Maryland education case. Still, most states have similar laws exempting church-controlled entities “operated primarily for religious purposes” from unemployment taxes, meaning a decision here could ripple nationally.
As the Court prepares to rule on both cases, the outcomes may redefine the boundaries of religious freedom in public institutions—and signal just how far this conservative-majority bench is willing to go in expanding those rights.
+ There are no comments
Add yours