Oklahoma faces renewed litigation after a federal judge temporarily barred the state from enforcing its ban on religious charter schools while Ben Gamla's lawsuit proceeds. The dispute follows a 2024 state Supreme Court ruling against a proposed Catholic virtual charter and centers on whether charter schools are state actors subject to the Establishment Clause. Judge David L. Russell cited Supreme Court precedents such as Carson v. Makin to justify his injunction. The case is likely to return to the U.S. Supreme Court, with major implications for church–state separation, taxpayers, and religious education.
Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Oklahoma’s Ban On Religious Charter Schools — What It Means
It is taking a real beating.getty
Oklahoma is again at the center of a high-stakes legal fight over whether taxpayer dollars may be used to fund religious charter schools. In March 2026 the Oklahoma Charter School Board denied an application from Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School, a Florida-based chain that operates Jewish charter schools in that state. The board cited a 2024 Oklahoma Supreme Court decision and pledged to defend that ruling in court.
Background: State Rulings and the St. Isidore Case
Oklahoma law defines charter schools as public institutions that must be non-sectarian. That principle was reinforced by a 2024 state Supreme Court decision rejecting a bid by two Catholic dioceses to create St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School. The state court held that St. Isidore, having been created by a charter with the state, would function as part of the public school system and therefore be a state actor subject to the Establishment Clause and the Oklahoma Constitution. The court concluded that the Free Exercise Clause could not justify establishing a state-created religious charter.
“The State's establishment of a religious charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the Establishment Clause,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court wrote, finding that a charter school that functions as a component of the public system cannot invoke Free Exercise to justify state-contracted religious instruction.
Federal Injunction: Judge David L. Russell
After the Ben Gamla application was denied, the matter moved to federal court. Senior U.S. District Judge David L. Russell (Western District of Oklahoma) issued an injunction preventing the state from enforcing its exclusion of religious charter schools while litigation proceeds. Russell, a Reagan appointee, grounded his decision on two core arguments:
- He questioned whether Oklahoma’s statutory label of “public” reliably establishes that charter schools are created, operated, or controlled by the government. Where those attributes are absent, Russell wrote, charters may not be state actors.
- He relied on recent U.S. Supreme Court precedents, notably Carson v. Makin and Trinity Lutheran, which held that once a state creates a public-benefit program it cannot exclude otherwise eligible recipients solely because they are religious.
Russell’s ruling thus argues that Oklahoma’s exclusion of Ben Gamla may amount to unconstitutional religious discrimination in a public-benefit program — a question that the courts will now address in ongoing litigation.
Parties, Positions, And Political Stakes
Ben Gamla’s case is being handled by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a prominent advocacy law firm that frequently litigates religious-liberty claims. Peter Deutsch, founder of Ben Gamla, called the injunction “a victory for educational freedom, religious equality, and families in Oklahoma,” and said the state cannot single out religious schools for exclusion from its charter program.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who previously challenged the St. Isidore proposal, has warned that allowing religious charters could force the state to process applications from a wide array of sectarian groups — including groups whose beliefs many Oklahomans oppose. Drummond argued that permitting a publicly funded Catholic virtual charter, for example, could open the door to requests from extreme sects or ideologies that would be politically and legally fraught.
Local Jewish leaders also raised concerns. Leaders of five Oklahoma synagogues and Jewish organizations said they were “deeply concerned” that an outside Jewish organization pursued a charter application without meaningful consultation with the established Oklahoma Jewish community, which they said already offers several Jewish educational options.
A coalition of Oklahoma families, teachers, and clergy opposed Ben Gamla as well, warning that taxpayer funding of sectarian public schools threatens separation of church and state, risks student indoctrination, and could enable discriminatory admission or employment policies.
Constitutional and Practical Implications
The dispute sits at the intersection of Free Exercise protections and Establishment Clause limits. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have strengthened access to public benefits for religious entities in some contexts, but the question of whether a religious charter operating under a state contract is a permissible public actor remains contested. If Ben Gamla ultimately prevails at the Supreme Court, Oklahoma — and potentially other states — could face difficult policy choices about whether to allow taxpayer-funded Islamic schools, other faith-based charters, or even institutions affiliated with unconventional belief systems. Opponents warn such outcomes would pressure states to decide which religious claims are acceptable to receive public funds.
Given the constitutional stakes and the Court’s recent jurisprudence, the dispute is likely to return to the U.S. Supreme Court. A final ruling would reshape the legal, fiscal, and cultural environment for public chartering and religious education nationwide.
Originally published on Forbes.com.
Help us improve.
