What does it mean for public schools, and public institutions generally, to remain “neutral” on religion? That question is at the heart of two important legal battles currently shaping the boundaries of secular law. Stinson v. Fayetteville School District (2025) and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond (2025), while arising in different states and contexts, both explore a core tension testing how far the government can go in engaging with religion before it crosses the line.
The dispute in Stinson arises due to an Arkansas Law (Act 573) requiring every public-school classroom and library to prominently display the Ten Commandments in a specific, state-approved format. The law didn’t just allow religious displays. It mandated that the posters be at least 16” x 20”, clearly visible from anywhere in the room, and be posted in every classroom, regardless of subject or age group. This meant kindergartners, high schoolers, math classes, and science classes would all be exposed to the same religious text throughout the school day.
Naturally, families protested. Jewish families objected to the version of the Ten Commandments used and said it conflicted with their beliefs. Nonreligious families and minority faith groups worried their children would feel like outsiders or be pressured or bullied to conform. Even Christian families objected that the state was elevating one interpretation of scripture over others. Overall, many parents emphasized that religious education should come from family decisions, not the government.
In a major ruling, the federal district court where Stinson was decided permanently blocked the Arkansas Law (Act 573) requiring every public-school classroom and library to display the Ten Commandments. The court found that the law likely violated the establishment clause, which prohibits government endorsement of religion, and also burdened families’ free exercise rights allowing them to practice their own beliefs. The key issue was context. These posters weren’t part of a history lesson or elective course, they were posted like rules on the wall. As one parent explained, children could interpret them the same way they interpret classroom rules as something they are expected to follow.
The court ultimately concluded that the displays were not neutral and that they sent a message that the state favored a particular religious viewpoint. Stinson reflects the modern reality that America’s classrooms are religiously diverse and sometimes nonreligious altogether. Laws that assume a single shared belief system can create real constitutional problems. While Stinson is about religious displays, the Oklahoma case goes even further, asking whether a religious school can be part of the public school system.
In Oklahoma, the state approved the creation of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a publicly funded charter school that would operate online, teach from a Catholic perspective, and be funded by taxpayer dollars. This raised the fundamental constitutional question of whether a public school, even if it is a charter school, can be religious.
Charter schools are unique because they are publicly funded, tuition free, but they are also often independently operated. In Oklahoma especially, charter schools are still legally considered public schools, which must remain nonreligious. If charter schools are treated as public institutions, allowing them to adopt a religious identity would mark a significant shift away from the traditional understanding that public education must remain secular.
Oklahoma’s charter school board approved the application for St. Isidore, a Catholic virtual school, which planned to teach a Catholic curriculum with a religious mission and identity while receiving full public funding. However, the state’s attorney general challenged the approval, arguing it violated the Establishment Clause wherein the government cannot promote religion, as well as state law requiring charter schools to be non-religious.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed and blocked the school’s approval. The case was elevated to the United States Supreme Court, where the decision ended in a tie, leaving the Oklahoma ruling in place. This means the religious charter school remains blocked, for now, but no national precedent was set.
Stinson and St. Isidore illustrates a critical moment in the evolution of secular law. While Stinson reinforces the long-standing rule that public schools must remain free from government-imposed religious doctrine, St. Isidore tests whether that principle will hold when religion seeks not just access to public benefits, but a place within and by public government institutions themselves.
Public schools are one of the few spaces intended to serve all students equally, regardless of belief. When the government appears to favor, promote, or adopt a particular religious perspective, it risks undermining that shared equal foundation.
As courts and communities ponder these questions, the stakes extend far beyond legal doctrine. They go to the heart of whether public education, and public institutions more broadly, can remain spaces where everyone belongs, regardless of faith or none at all. They also raise a deeper question as to whether the constitutional balance embodied in the First Amendment will endure. The framers, shaped by a history of religious conflict and division, understood the dangers of allowing the government to take sides in matters of faith. Their solution was not to exclude religion from society, but to prevent its entanglement with state power. As courts reflect on what neutrality requires, the question is not only what the Constitution permits today, but whether we will continue to honor the vision that gave rise to it.
Chloe Love |
Secular AZ Legal Intern |
