But the reprieve may be short-lived. Both supporters and opponents recognize the constitutional debate over whether publicly-funded charter schools can explicitly promote religion isn鈥檛 settled.

鈥淚t鈥檚 obviously disappointing,鈥� said Nicole Garnett, a Notre Dame University law professor. But the decision 鈥� a 4-4 tie 鈥� doesn鈥檛 set a precedent, she said. 鈥淭he issue remains alive and will undoubtedly resurface soon.鈥�

Garnett鈥檚 novel legal argument in favor of charters being private inspired Catholic church leaders in Oklahoma to apply for a charter in 2023. But ironically, her long and close friendship with Justice Amy Coney Barrett is the likely reason for the split decision. 

As 社区黑料 reported in March, Garnett and Barrett met as Supreme Court law clerks in 1998, both taught at Notre Dame and raised their children in the same neighborhood. Josh Blackman, an associate professor at the South Texas College of Law, and a friend of Garnett鈥檚, predicted at the time that the case 鈥渕ight go to a 4-4 decision.鈥�

鈥淚 feel bad for Nicole,鈥� he said. 鈥淭his is her life鈥檚 work.鈥�

Barrett recused herself from the case, and in a simple , the justices said the state supreme court鈥檚 ruling last year to deny a charter to St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School stands 鈥� for now.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a day of celebration and relief,鈥� said Robert Franklin, a former member of the Oklahoma virtual charter board who voted against the school鈥檚 application. 鈥淚 am not so naive [to think] that the matter doesn鈥檛 find breath again at a later date, but for today, it鈥檚 a day to exhale.鈥�

While the opinion doesn鈥檛 say how the justices decided, experts largely suspect that Chief Justice John Roberts played a central role and sided with the three liberals on the court. Early in April鈥檚 oral arguments, he appeared skeptical of the school鈥檚 assertion that Oklahoma didn鈥檛 create or control the school.

The conservative-leaning court, which has increasingly ruled in favor of expanding religious freedom, agreed to hear the case just four days after President Donald Trump took office. Roberts is the author of the three most recent opinions that Garnett and other scholars consider to be a 鈥渢rilogy鈥� 鈥� a over whether a religious school could participate in a state program offering playground resurfacing materials and two cases involving state funds for religious education, in and . But Roberts is also known for restraint. The potential disruption to nearly 8,000 schools nationwide may have proved to be too much for the chief justice, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at the George Washington University Law School.

The case 鈥渟eemed to many people like a vehicle for expanding the idea of school choice as broadly as possible,鈥� Tuttle said. But he speculated that the court 鈥� most likely Roberts 鈥� 鈥渞ecognized the concerns 鈥� that this would have the possibility of killing charter schools.鈥�

He agrees with Garnett that a similar case could rise to the court, but for now, the matter remains unsettled. Even in cases of a tie, justices can issue their own opinions, something they did not do in this case.

鈥淚f it were settled, then you would have opinions,鈥� he said. But the case presented multiple 鈥渞ed flags under the Establishment clause.鈥� Thursday鈥檚 ruling, he said, means that when it comes to faith-based charter schools, the line between religious freedom and government entanglement is unclear. 鈥淲hat we know is that the Supreme Court doesn’t know it either.鈥�

The decision leaves many Catholic families in Oklahoma, especially those in rural areas, without a publicly funded faith-based option. In a statement, Archbishop of Oklahoma City Paul Coakley and David A. Konderla, the bishop of Tulsa, said that they are 鈥渆xploring other options for offering a virtual Catholic education to all persons in the state.鈥�

Days before the oral arguments, Starlee Coleman, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, warned the court and the Trump administration that declaring charter schools to be private would threaten funding for students since state laws define them as public. 

Others argued that a decision in favor of religious charter schools would compromise civil rights protections since many faith-based schools deny admission or services to LGBTQ students or kids with disabilities.

鈥淔amilies choose public charter schools because they provide innovative, student-centered learning environments tailored to students鈥� unique needs and because they are accountable to families and taxpayers,鈥� Coleman said in a statement Thursday. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 what makes them special, and that鈥檚 what we鈥檙e here to protect.鈥� 

The administration, as part of its school choice agenda, has heavily promoted charter schools since January by removing Biden-era regulations and increasing funding. But some experts say states might tweak charter school laws to clarify that charters are public despite being operated by private organizations.

鈥淭he fact that it was as close as it was is a signal. This is a chance to make some changes because it’s going to come up again,鈥� said Preston Green, an education and law professor at the University of Connecticut. He has recommended that states amend laws to clarify that board members for charter schools are public officials.

Green recognizes that Thursday鈥檚 outcome may have been a fluke. A recusal such as Barrett鈥檚 is unlikely to happen again. 鈥淭here’s just no guarantee that Coney Barrett is going to side with the liberals. There’s no guarantee that Roberts 鈥� or whoever it was 鈥� would come out that way the second time around.鈥澛�

In 2020, when Amy Coney Barrett came before the Senate for confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of her closest friends told a story about their year together working as law clerks in the nation鈥檚 capital.

鈥淭hat last day when you leave the court, you think, 鈥榃ow, that’s about the coolest thing that’s ever going to happen to me,鈥欌�� said Nicole Stelle Garnett. She assisted Justice Clarence Thomas during the 1998 term, the same year Barrett worked under Justice Antonin Scalia. 鈥淣ow, to see my friend testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, to walk back up the steps 21 years later is really, really something.鈥�

Fast forward another five years. Garnett, now a law professor at  the University of Notre Dame, is about to have her own Supreme Court moment. 

On April 30, the court will consider a legal question that has defined her career: Can explicitly religious organizations operate charter schools? At the center of the dispute is St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, an online school in Oklahoma that planned to serve about 200 students this year before the state supreme court ruled the decision to approve it violated the constitutional provision separating church and state. 

“This could be an earthquake for American public education,” said Samuel Abrams, who directs the International Partnership for the Study of Educational Privatization at the University of Colorado, Boulder. As the country experiences a rise in Christian nationalism, a favorable ruling could invite the encroachment of religion not only into education but other areas of civic life that have traditionally been non-sectarian. “If the Supreme Court rules in favor of overturning that decision, the church-state cleavage will disappear. That’s a dramatic development for the First Amendment.”

In a sign of the case鈥檚 gravity, the Trump administration filed a in support of St. Isidore last week, arguing that 鈥渁 state may not put schools, parents or students to the choice of forgoing religious exercise or forgoing government funds.鈥�

But Barrett, who handed President Donald Trump a conservative 6-3 supermajority when she was confirmed to the court, won鈥檛 be on the bench to hear it. She recused herself, leaving no explanation for sitting out what could be the most significant legal decision to affect schools in decades. 

Observers believe the reason is her friendship with Garnett, who was an early to the school. While she鈥檚 not officially on the case and hasn鈥檛 joined any legal briefs in support of it, Nicole and her husband Richard Garnett, also a Notre Dame law professor, are both with the university鈥檚 Religious Liberty Clinic, which represents St. Isidore. 

In a deep irony, the longtime friendship between the two women, forged in Catholic faith and a conservative approach to jurisprudence, now threatens to tip the scales away from a cause Garnett has spent her career defending,

The recusal increases the chances that the vote could end in a 4-4 tie, which would leave the Oklahoma court鈥檚 decision intact. That outcome would prohibit St. Isidore from receiving public funds and likely send proponents of religious charters looking for a new test case. 

Justices typically do not offer reasons for recusing themselves. A spokesperson for the Supreme Court said Barrett had no comment on the matter.

鈥淚 feel bad for Nicole,鈥� said Josh Blackman, an associate professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston. 鈥淭his is her life’s work, and it might go to a 4-4 decision.鈥� 

Blackman, a proponent of religious charter schools, has known the Garnetts for years. 鈥淎my knows what Nicole did for this case,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he case is so significant because it鈥檚 an application of both [the Garnetts鈥橾 Catholic faith and their views on constitutional law.鈥�

鈥楢 heady experience鈥�

The friendship between Garnett and Barrett developed long before the legal clash over St. Isidore. When Trump nominated Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, how the two first met at a coffee shop the spring before they became high court clerks in the late 1990s. 

鈥淚 walked away thinking I had just met a remarkable woman,鈥� she wrote in a for USA Today.

There weren鈥檛 too many high-profile cases that year, Garnett said. But one stands out 鈥� a complaint that a Chicago ordinance against gang loitering violated members鈥� due process rights. The , but Barrett and Garnett performed research for dissenters Scalia and Thomas. the local law allowed police officers to do their jobs and it a 鈥渟mall price to pay鈥� to keep the streets safe.

鈥淚t’s a heady experience and really hard work,鈥� Garnett told 社区黑料. 鈥淏ut we all liked each other. We socialized together.鈥�

When Trump nominated Barrett in 2017 to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, all 34 clerks from the Supreme Court class of 鈥�99 鈥� Democrats, Republicans and independents 鈥� wrote to the Senate judiciary committee. 

But none knew Barrett like Garnett. Their personal and professional lives have been intertwined for more than two decades.

When Garnett was pregnant with her first child during their year as clerks, Barrett and the other young attorneys threw her a in the court鈥檚 dining room for justices鈥� spouses. Barrett is godmother to the Garnetts鈥� third child. After their clerkship, Richard Garnett helped to the boutique Washington law firm where he worked. (He later recruited Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court鈥檚 three liberals, to the .) 

Before Barrett cast her vote for the majority in the that struck down Roe v. Wade, the New Yorker published that described the newest justice as a 鈥減roduct of a Christian legal movement鈥� shifting the court further to the right. The article irked Garnett鈥檚 daughter, Maggie, who said it dismissed 鈥渁 mentor and maternal figure in my life鈥� as a 鈥渃old, impenetrable鈥� mouthpiece for conservatives. In a , she wrote that the article portrayed Barrett as 鈥渁n almost robotic product of her male mentors 鈥� rather than as an accomplished and talented jurist in her own right.鈥�  

At Notre Dame, Garnett and Barrett overlapped as faculty members for roughly 17 years. Aside from her focus on religious liberty and education, Garnett also teaches property law. Barrett鈥檚 courses focused on constitutional law and the federal courts. 

鈥淪he became a lifelong friend,鈥� Garnett said. 鈥淪he lived around the corner from us and we raised our kids together.鈥�

And when Trump introduced the mother of seven to the nation, Garnett was seated in the Rose Garden along with senators, White House officials and other dignitaries.

Given their intersecting interests, it鈥檚 very likely that school vouchers came up in conversation. Until 2017, Barrett served as a trustee at Trinity School at Greenlawn, a classical Christian academy in South Bend, Indiana, that participates in the state鈥檚 .

Garnett, meanwhile, was honing legal arguments in favor of expanding such programs. Before joining the faculty at Notre Dame, she worked as a staff attorney for the Institute for Justice, a right-leaning law firm that has led efforts to open school choice programs to religious schools. In one case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the expansion of to include faith-based schools. 

While at the institute, Garnett also worked on , which challenged Maine鈥檚 exclusion of religious schools from a private school choice program. The state won that case, but lost when a subsequent case about the program, , came before the Supreme Court. In Carson, Barrett joined the other five conservative justices in ruling that it was unconstitutional to keep those schools out. 

Garnett, who didn鈥檛 work on Carson, said she cried when the family at its center won. 

But even with this victory, Garnett viewed aspects of school choice as unfriendly to religious freedom. She found it troubling that to keep their doors open, many Catholic schools in Indiana to charters, which required them to remove all evidence of their faith.

鈥淩eligion has been stripped from the schools鈥� curricula and religious iconography from their walls,鈥� she wrote in . 鈥淭here is little doubt that the declining enrollments in Catholic schools are at least partially attributable to the rise of charter schools.鈥�

Her convictions on the role of religion in public life are both personal and professional. She sent her children to Catholic schools in South Bend and views to serve low-income children as vital to urban communities. She captured her years of scholarship on religious liberty in she wrote after Carson: 鈥淭he Constitution demands government neutrality toward religious believers and institutions. Full stop.鈥�

That view is belied by state laws that prohibit public funds from directly supporting religious schools and that define charters as public schools open to all students. Some critics predict that religious groups running charters would not have to uphold the civil rights protections of LGBTQ students, for example.

Garnett warned that attempts to create religious charters would face litigation for years. But in Oklahoma, Republicans and Catholic church leaders were ready for a fight.

At a time when schools remained shuttered due to COVID, Catholic school leaders in Oklahoma City and Tulsa wanted to expand virtual options and 鈥渞each more kids in a big rural state,鈥� she said. A widely-circulated she wrote for the right-wing Manhattan Institute offered a legal path to get there. 

鈥淚 think that we found each other,鈥� she told 社区黑料. 鈥淚 didn’t go looking for a client here. It’s very organic how the whole thing unfolded.鈥�

鈥楬ot ticket鈥� 

If other recent school choice cases are any indication, there鈥檚 still a good chance the court will overturn the Oklahoma Supreme Court鈥檚 opinion. Such a precedent-setting development would have a huge impact on the nation鈥檚 educational landscape, said Michael Petrilli, president of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

The court could say that 鈥渁 charter school authorizer can’t turn down an otherwise qualified applicant just because it is religious, or proposes a religious school,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hat would apply immediately to all states with charter laws on the books.鈥�

Garnett dismissed the idea that a victory for St. Isidore will open the floodgates to thousands of religious schools becoming charters. Applicants would still have to meet state criteria for approval, she said.

The ruling 鈥渕ay shed light on other state’s arrangements, but it definitely will not require all states to allow religious charter schools,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hat’s not on the table 鈥� and it’s not how the court works.鈥�

But others are not so certain. 

鈥淭he implications for education and society could be profound,鈥� said Preston Green, a University of Connecticut education professor.  鈥淚t would mean that the government cannot exclude religious groups from any public benefits program.鈥�

With oral arguments approaching, Notre Dame law students who have worked with Garnett over the past two years have already asked if she can get them a seat in the courtroom for such 鈥渁 hot ticket,鈥� she said. 

She won鈥檛 talk about why her friend recused herself from the case, but acknowledged the stakes. 

鈥淢y hope is that it won’t go to a 4-4,鈥�  Garnett said 鈥淢y hope is that they wouldn’t have granted [a hearing] if they thought it might. But I know you don’t make assumptions about anything.鈥�