vlog

Skip to content
NOWCAST vlog News on METV at 9pm Sundays
Watch on Demand
Advertisement

Supreme Court will weigh approval for first US publicly funded religious charter school, in Oklahoma

The conservative-dominated high court has issued several decisions in recent years signaling a willingness to allow public funds to flow to religious entities

Supreme Court will weigh approval for first US publicly funded religious charter school, in Oklahoma

The conservative-dominated high court has issued several decisions in recent years signaling a willingness to allow public funds to flow to religious entities

If you were born in America, citizenship is your birthright. You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one. Is that still your plan? Yes, absolutely. We're going to end that because it's ridiculous. It's almost certainly going to be challenged in the courts. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship in the US, meaning any child born in the country is *** citizen with some very limited exceptions. Following the Civil War in 1868, the 14th Amendment was ratified, but it's in the spotlight now with critics calling for its end. President-elect Donald Trump said he would issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship. Under Biden's current policies, even though these millions of illegal border crosses have entered the country unlawfully, all of their future children will become automatic US citizens. Can you imagine? They'll be eligible for welfare, taxpayer funded health care, the right to vote, chain migration, and countless other government benefits. Senator Tim Kaine, *** Democrat from Virginia, recently took to the floor to remind fellow lawmakers of the 14th Amendment's history. Section 1 states all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they resign. This protection overturned the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sanford, which had ruled that enslaved people were not citizens of the US and therefore did not have the same protections as citizens. Dred Scott was enslaved trying to fight his way to freedom as the Civil War came to *** close with President Lincoln assassinated. And with slavery abolished by the 13th Amendment. The reunited nation realized it needed to fix the damage done by the Dredsky case. The Supreme Court further defined citizen in the 1898 ruling of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, Wong Kim Ark was denied reentry to the US after visiting his parents in China. He was denied on grounds that he was not considered *** US citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act. The court ruled in Kim Ark's favor, stating he was *** citizen because he was born on US soil. This landmark decision helped clearly define the Supreme Court's interpretation of *** citizen. Birthright citizenship means that you are *** US citizen if you are born in America. Your right to citizenship does not depend upon the status of your parents. And from then on, millions of people across America have benefited from this protection. Dred Scott, Wong Kimmar. And Donald Trump all meet that test. According to the Pew Research Center, 4.4 million US born children lived with an unauthorized immigrant parent in 2022. The population is estimated to have grown since then. This concept of just sole, the right of the soil, is shared with dozens of other countries. 75 countries in the world have some form of birthright citizenship, of which over 30 have unrestricted birthright policies like the United States. So can *** president end birthright citizenship? The straightforward answer is not likely. No president has the authority to eliminate or modify *** constitutional amendment. If they were to issue an executive order, it would be unconstitutional. Changing *** constitutional amendment would need extensive support from lawmakers. The process is pretty laborious. It's pretty long and difficult. Amending the Constitution requires 2/3 support in both houses of Congress. And the ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is pushing *** bill to get rid of birthright citizenship by adding requirements to the parents' legal status in order to gain citizenship. In *** 2023 campaign video, Trump previewed his intentions on the matter. My new term in office, I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law. Going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic US citizenship. Trump said he would also stop pregnant women from entering the US to give birth, *** practice sometimes referred to as birth tourism. If in the off chance the 14th Amendment does change, some experts say it would create new issues. What we would do is essentially create an entire class of stateless people, an entire class of stateless children. These children can't be deported anywhere they're only citizens of the United States so we have people here who would not have the full rights and privileges of being *** US citizen that would cause economic instability, social instability.
Advertisement
Supreme Court will weigh approval for first US publicly funded religious charter school, in Oklahoma

The conservative-dominated high court has issued several decisions in recent years signaling a willingness to allow public funds to flow to religious entities

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take on a new culture war dispute: whether the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school should be allowed to open in Oklahoma.Related video above: Can birthright citizenship be repealed? Breaking down Trump’s proposalThe justices said they would review an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision that invalidated a state board's approval of an application by the Catholic Church in Oklahoma to open a charter school.The conservative-dominated high court has issued several decisions in recent years signaling a willingness to allow public funds to flow to religious entities. At the same time, conservative-led states have sought to insert religion into public schools, including Louisiana's requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms.The case probably will be argued in late April and decided by early summer. Justice Amy Coney Barrett is not taking part in the case, but did not explain why.Last June, Oklahoma's top court held by a 7-1 vote that a taxpayer-funded religious charter school would violate the part of the First Amendment that prohibits government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion."The decision followed a 3-2 vote in 2023 by the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board to approve an application by the archdiocese for the St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School. The K-12 online school had planned to start classes for its first 200 enrollees last fall, with part of its mission to evangelize its students in the Catholic faith.A group of Oklahoma parents, faith leaders and a public education nonprofit sued to block the school."Under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school," Justice James Winchester, an appointee of former Republican Gov. Frank Keating, wrote in the court's majority opinion. "As such, a charter school must be nonsectarian."However, St. Isidore will evangelize the Catholic school curriculum while sponsored by the state."In dissent, Justice Dana Kuehn wrote that excluding St. Isidore from operating a charter school based solely on its religious affiliation would violate a different part of the First Amendment that protects religious freedom.The high court's decision to intervene was warmly received by Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal advocacy group representing the state board. "There's great irony in state officials who claim to be in favor of religious liberty discriminating against St. Isidore because of its Catholic beliefs," the group's chief legal counsel, Jim Campbell, said in a statement.Opponents of the Oklahoma charter school called on the justices to uphold the state court ruling. "The law is clear: Charter schools are public schools and must be secular and open to all students," the American Civil Liberties Union and other legal groups said in a statement. They are representing the school's opponents in a separate lawsuit.The case puts Oklahoma's Republican governor, Kevin Stitt, and its Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, on opposing sides. Stitt favors the school. Drummond reversed the advice given to the charter school board by his Republican predecessor, warning that the Catholic charter school would, in his view, violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take on a new culture war dispute: whether the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school should be allowed to open in Oklahoma.

Related video above: Can birthright citizenship be repealed? Breaking down Trump’s proposal

Advertisement

The justices said they would review an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision that invalidated a state board's approval of an application by the Catholic Church in Oklahoma to open a charter school.

The conservative-dominated high court has issued several decisions in recent years signaling a willingness to allow public funds to flow to religious entities. At the same time, conservative-led states have sought to insert religion into public schools, including Louisiana's requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms.

The case probably will be argued in late April and decided by early summer. Justice Amy Coney Barrett is not taking part in the case, but did not explain why.

Last June, Oklahoma's top court held by a 7-1 vote that a taxpayer-funded religious charter school would violate the part of the First Amendment that prohibits government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion."

The decision followed a 3-2 vote in 2023 by the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board to approve an application by the archdiocese for the St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School. The K-12 online school had planned to start classes for its first 200 enrollees last fall, with part of its mission to evangelize its students in the Catholic faith.

A group of Oklahoma parents, faith leaders and a public education nonprofit sued to block the school.

"Under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school," Justice James Winchester, an appointee of former Republican Gov. Frank Keating, wrote in the court's majority opinion. "As such, a charter school must be nonsectarian.

"However, St. Isidore will evangelize the Catholic school curriculum while sponsored by the state."

In dissent, Justice Dana Kuehn wrote that excluding St. Isidore from operating a charter school based solely on its religious affiliation would violate a different part of the First Amendment that protects religious freedom.

The high court's decision to intervene was warmly received by Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal advocacy group representing the state board. "There's great irony in state officials who claim to be in favor of religious liberty discriminating against St. Isidore because of its Catholic beliefs," the group's chief legal counsel, Jim Campbell, said in a statement.

Opponents of the Oklahoma charter school called on the justices to uphold the state court ruling. "The law is clear: Charter schools are public schools and must be secular and open to all students," the American Civil Liberties Union and other legal groups said in a statement. They are representing the school's opponents in a separate lawsuit.

The case puts Oklahoma's Republican governor, Kevin Stitt, and its Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, on opposing sides. Stitt favors the school. Drummond reversed the advice given to the charter school board by his Republican predecessor, warning that the Catholic charter school would, in his view, violate the Constitution.