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�