St. Isidore Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond: Potential Implications for Minnesota Charter Schools 

Corey Kibbel* 

Background 

St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Catholic School (St. Isidore) is a virtual charter school operating in Oklahoma which received approval from the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board.¹ In Oklahoma, charter schools are “public schools established by contract” with a sponsoring institution, which can be public or private.² These charter schools receive public funding, are free for students, and operate independent and in manners distinct from non-charter public schools.³ St. Isidore operates as a state-wide free charter school, offering a virtual Catholic education sponsored by both the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa.⁴ The sectarian religious nature of St. Isidore is not contested.⁵ 

The Attorney General of Oklahoma, Gentner Drummond, filed suit in Oklahoma State Court seeking a declaratory judgment that contracting with a sectarian organization to form a sectarian charter school violated the federal Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution which prohibit the use of public money for sectarian purposes and which require nonsectarian charter schools.⁶ The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted that declaratory relief.⁷ 

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 24, 2025 to address whether the actions of a privately run school constitute state action due to a contract with the state to provide free charter school services and whether prohibiting sectarian charter schools violates the Establishment Clause.⁸ This case has garnered significant attention from a wide variety of parties, boasting sixty amicus briefs.⁹ 

Potential Rulings 

The core of the dispute regarding St. Isidore is whether charter schools, as public schools, act as government actors or whether charter schools, as formed by contract, operate as contractors to achieve a public purpose.¹⁰ If the Supreme Court rules that Oklahoma’s charter schools exist as a public function, to advance the interests of the state, then St. Isidore is a public actor and the government can and must regulate charter providers as they would any other state agency.¹¹ Under this schema, allowing St. Isidore to operate is would be untenable under the Establishment Clause.¹² However, because Oklahoma’s charter school law describes a contract-based relationship between the chartering organization, who is a private actor, and the school-operating organization, who is also a private actor, to provide a public service and to receive public funds to provide that service, the Supreme Court could rule that St. Isidore is contractor and thus, under the Free Exercise Clause, Oklahoma cannot discriminate against them as a provider on the basis of religion.¹³  

Comparing Oklahoma and Minnesota Charter School Statutes 

Oklahoma and Minnesota have incredibly similar charter school statutes. In both states, charter schools are considered public schools, though they are exempted from a variety of administrative and procedural regulations that otherwise bind school districts.¹⁴ This similarity includes expressly utilizing charter schools to supplement the public schools by offering “different and innovative teaching methods.”¹⁵ Both states also expressly do not allow a “nonpublic sectarian or religious institution” to open or operate a charter school.¹⁶

While there are minor distinctions in approval processes and other administrative details, the main way in which the two states’ charter school statutes differ is in the way charter schools are incorporated. In Oklahoma, the prospective charter school contracts with another party to open the school.¹⁷ Minnesota, in contrast, allows various institutions, including 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, which Oklahoma does not include, to act as a “charter school authorizer.”¹⁸ Authorizers “charter” the school which “must be organized and operated as a nonprofit corporation.”¹⁹

Implications for Minnesota Charter Schools 

If the Supreme Court rules on the narrow facts of this case; on whether St. Isidore, as a charter school under the Oklahoma statute, is a private contractor or a government agent, it is unlikely that the ruling will have sweeping implications for Minnesota charter schools. However, if the Court does not exercise such restraint, it is incredibly likely that dicta commenting on Oklahoma’s charter school statute and its constitutionality will impact Minnesota charter schools because of the similarity between the two states’ charter school statutes.  

Both Minnesota and Oklahoma’s charter school laws include a provision expressly restricting the ability of sectarian religious entities from forming charter schools.²⁰ There is a possibility that the Supreme Court exercises this opportunity to declare certain portions of these statutes unconstitutional on the basis that they disallow religious actors from providing public services based solely on their religious status, thus violating the Free Exercise Clause.²¹ Though possible, with Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself from the case, it is unlikely that the Court will stretch the bounds of the case in this way.²² 

A ruling that implicates St. Isidore as a government agent will not likely change much for Minnesota charter schools. Within Minnesota, charter schools already officially have the status of a public school with some notable administrative exceptions.²³ In contrast, a ruling for St. Isidore could open the door to new kinds of charter schools in Minnesota. Minnesota charter schools are specifically created to “encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods,” an idea which has already been leveraged to establish many culturally-based charter schools in the Minneapolis area.²⁴ This case could lead to enabling religious schools in Minnesota to seek charter school status.  

---

* Corey Kibbel, JD Candidate, University of St. Thomas School of Law, Class of 2026 (Associate Editor). 

1. Brief for Petitioner St. Isidore of Seville Cath. Virtual Sch. at *1, 2025 WL 762640, cert. granted, Nos. 24–396, 24–394 (Supreme Court of the United States, Mar. 5, 2025) (hereinafter Brief for St. Isidore). ↩︎
2. 70 Okla. Stat. §§ 3–132.2(C)(1)(b), 3–134(C). ↩︎
3. 70 Okla. Stat. §§ 3–132.3, 3–136(A)(9), 3–131(A)(3). ↩︎
4. Drummond ex rel. State v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter Sch. Bd., 558 P.3d 1, 6 (Okla., 2024). ↩︎
5. Id. ↩︎
6. Id. at 6–7. ↩︎
7. Id. at 15. ↩︎
8. St. Isidore of Seville Cath. Virtual Sch. v. Drummond, 145 S. Ct. 1134 (2025) (granting certiorari); compare Brief for St. Isidore at *i, and Brief for Petitioner at *i, 2025 WL 762639, cert. granted, No. 24–394 (Supreme Court of the United States, Mar. 5, 2025) (hereinafter Brief for the Board), with Brief for Respondent, 2025 WL 1002809 at *i, cert. granted, Nos. 24–396, 24–394 (Supreme Court of the United States, Mar. 31, 2025) (hereinafter Brief for Drummond). ↩︎
9. St. Isidore of Seville Cath. Virtual Sch. v. Drummond, 145 S. Ct. 1135 (2025) (click “filings”). ↩︎
10. Zoom Interview with Lee McGrath, Exec. Dir., Opportunity for All Kids (Apr. 18, 2025). Lee McGrath is the executive director for Opportunity for All Kids (OAK), the preeminent school-choice advocacy group in Minnesota. Before joining OAK, Lee opened the Minnesota office for the Institute for Justice, another school-choice legal group. Lee’s colleagues litigated some of the apposite cases to the discussion in this Blog, including Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue and Carson v. Makin. See Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue, 591 U.S. 464 (2020); Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022). ↩︎
11. Zoom Interview with Lee McGrath, Exec. Dir., Opportunity for All Kids (Apr. 18, 2025). ↩︎
12. Id. ↩︎
13. Id. See also Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. 449 (2017); Espinoza, 591 U.S. 464; Carson, 586 U.S. 767. ↩︎
14. Compare 70 Okla. Stat. §§ 3–132.2, 3–136(A)(1), with Minn. Stat. 124E.03(1). ↩︎
15. Compare 70 Okla. Stat. § 3–131, with Minn. Stat. 124E.01(a)(2) (using the same language). ↩︎
16. Compare 70 Okla. Stat. § 3–136(A)(2), with Minn. Stat. 124E.06(3)(c). ↩︎
17. 70 Okla. Stat. § 3–132.2(C)(1)(b).  ↩︎
18. Minn. Stat. 124E.05. ↩︎
19. Minn. Stat. 124E.06. ↩︎
20. 70 Okla. Stat. § 3–136(A)(2); Minn. Stat. 124E.06(3)(c). ↩︎
21. Zoom Interview with Lee McGrath, Exec. Dir., Opportunity for All Kids (Apr. 18, 2025). ↩︎
22. Id. ↩︎
23. Minn. Stat. 124E.03(1). ↩︎
24. Minn. Stat. 124E.01(1)(a)(2); Directory, MN Ass’n of Charter Schs., https://mncharterschools.org/directory/ [https://perma.cc/DHC6-BH34] (last visited May 7, 2025) (listing Minnesota’s 184 charter schools and their programmatic focus).  ↩︎