The Supreme Court may be headed for a 4-4 split in a case that tests the constitutional legalities of religious charter schools.

The high court heard several hours of oral arguments Wednesday in the case of Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, and each participating justice, except for Chief Justice John Roberts, gave clear indications of how they will vote in the case.

The school

St. Isidore of Seville — named for an unofficial patron saint of the internet — is a virtual Catholic charter school operating in Oklahoma that was established by the diocese of Tulsa and the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City. Under state law, charter schools must be nonreligious “in their programs, admissions policies, and other operations.” The school projects an initial enrollment of 500 students with the expectation of reaching 1,500 students by 2028, half from lower-income families.

Per the school’s handbook, it provides a “robust Catholic education” to all attendees and is open to both Catholic and non-Catholic students.

In 2023, the charter school board approved St. Isidore’s application for the following school year, but Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general and current gubernatorial candidate, Gentner Drummond, sought and obtained a court order from the Oklahoma Supreme Court directing the board to invalidate its contract with the school. The court reasoned that as a public school, St. Isidore is required to be nonsectarian under Oklahoma’s charter school law, and that the rule comports with both the Oklahoma Constitution and the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, both of which prohibit the use of public funds for religious institutions.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

St. Isidore appealed the decision and argues that the school provides a “much-needed opportunity for many Oklahoma children who lack robust educational choices or find traditional schooling difficult due to learning differences.”

The justices face important questions of law

The justices now consider two questions. First, whether the actions of St. Isidore’s, a free, privately-run school, constitute “state action” simply because of its charter school contract. And second, whether the First Amendment’s free exercise clause is violated by Oklahoma’s exclusion of St. Isidore’s from its charter school program.

The ruling has far-reaching potential to affect charter schools across the nation. Further, because it sets up something of a contest between the establishment clause — the section of the Constitution that ensures separation of church and state via a prohibition of government endorsement of a religion — and the free exercise clause — the section that prohibits the government from making laws that impede the free exercise of religion — the consequences threaten to reach even beyond schoolhouse walls.

A split court

During the marathon oral arguments, the Court’s most conservative justices signaled an overt willingness to rule in favor of St. Isidore’s and against Oklahoma. Meanwhile, the Court’s liberal flank predictably pushed back on the legality of permitting government funding for a religious school.

Justice Elena Kagan framed the issue as a court-sanctioned power for a charter school to simply ignore rules with which it disagrees.

“These are state-run institutions,” Kagan said, and argued that allowing this Catholic school to receive a charter despite Oklahoma’s rule against it would amount to giving St. Isidore’s — and by extension, other schools — to simply “strike” portions of state law with which they disagree.

Likewise, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was highly skeptical of the idea of allowing government-funded religious charter schools.

“I think the essence of the establishment clause was, ‘We’re not going to pay religious leaders to teach their religion,”” said Sotomayor to attorney James Campbell for the state’s charter school boards. “Really, what you’re saying is the free exercise clause trumps the establishment clause.”

In colloquy with attorney Campbell, Sotomayor pushed back on the argument that history favors St. Isidore’s position.

“Using history in this case is crazy,” the justice snapped, “because during early history, no one thought there was an obligation of the government to provide funding [for schools] at all.”

“We don’t use the history of segregation to interpret the equal protection clause now,” she continued. “I doubt very much we would use that history of the federal government funding the churches to teach Indian children and convert them as proving anything about the free exercise or establishment clause now.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson similarly argued that Oklahoma’s wish was to set up secular private schools, and that it is allowed to do so, despite the fact that St. Isidore’s disagrees.

“So it’s not being denied a benefit that everyone else gets,” said Jackson.

But several times over the course of the proceedings, Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled that he sees it differently.

“All the religious school is saying is don’t exclude us on account of our religion,” remarked Kavanaugh, who elaborated at length that religious institutions should not be excluded from doing what secular institutions can do.

Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared to be convinced that the charter school is not a government entity, given the lack of supervision by a local school board, thereby circumventing any constitutional issues relevant to government action.

Justice Samuel Alito left little doubt as to where he stands on the case. While questioning Gregory Garre, who argued the case on behalf of Drummond, Alito said that the Oklahoma attorney general’s office was “motivated by hostility toward particular religions.” To underscore his point, Alito pointed to Drummond’s statements that many Oklahomans would support Christian charter schools, but would be less likely to approve similar applications from schools of other faiths.

“We have statement after statement by the attorney general that reeks of hostility toward Islam,” Alito said to Garre.

“That’s entirely incorrect, your Honor,” responded Garre, arguing that Drummond’s statements merely warned of tensions to come if a Catholic charter school was allowed to operate.

Alito also commented on Oklahoma’s “unsavory discriminatory history,” and Garre expressed doubt that Oklahoma’s constitution showcased animus against Catholic immigrants.

Rather, Garre offered, Oklahoma’s separation of church and state was likely motivated by the government’s “Christianization” of Native American children.

Alito, who has often spoken of religion being “under attack,” doubled down and asked, “Do you think that anti-Catholic bigotry had disappeared from Oklahoma by 1907?”

With Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, recused from the case, due to a friendship with a professor who advised St. Isidore, the outcome could come down to Chief Justice John Roberts, who did not show his hand clearly. He said early in the arguments that the Supreme Court’s previous rulings dealt with a less significant mixture between state governments and schools than the current Oklahoma cases involve. Should the Supreme Court split 4-4, it means the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling against St. Isidore’s would stand, and for the immediate future, religious charter schools would be disallowed.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Prosecutor gets suspension for invading jury’s…

Ethics

Prosecutor gets suspension for invading jury’s ‘inner sanctum’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 27, 2025, 10:27 am CDT

An Oklahoma lawyer has been suspended for six months for watching real-time jury deliberations on a monitor in a murder case that he prosecuted.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court suspended former assistant district attorney Isaac Seth Brantley Shields in a March 25 decision.

The Legal Profession Blog published highlights.

Shields violated “the inner sanctum of a jury,” which is “a high breach of trust and a serious interference with the administration of justice,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said. “It is common knowledge that observing jury deliberations is unacceptable.”

Shields was accused of watching the deliberations video July 1, 2022, in the trial of Chouteau, Oklahoma, man Robert Kent Kraft, according to prior coverage by KJRH.com. There was no audio, according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Shields was an assistant district attorney in Oklahoma’s District 12, which consists of Craig County, Mayes County and Rogers County. He was the lead prosecutor in the trial of Kraft, who claimed that he fatally stabbed another man in self-defense.

Jurors were deliberating in an adjacent courtroom to give them more space during the COVID-19 pandemic. The room was equipped with three security cameras that remained on during deliberations. Facial expressions and hand gestures were visible on the high-quality video, but it was not possible to read words on paper.

Two hours into the deliberations, an officer allowed Shields into the locked security office where the video played. Shields claimed that he was asked to enter because of a security situation involving the defendant’s family trying to enter the courtroom; security personnel said the security incident happened hours later, but they did not know why Shields was allowed in.

Shields said he did not immediately leave because he was curious about what was taking the jurors so long and because he had nothing else to do, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said. He left and returned several times. He later told another assistant district attorney who was the second chair in the trial to come the security room. Shields controlled the cameras to zoom in and zoom out and discussed his observations with security officers and the other prosecutor.

At first, there appeared to be a holdout juror, but Kraft was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder. His case is on appeal after a mistrial was granted because of the prosecutors’ jury observations.

A deputy reported his concerns about the prosecutors watching the video. When asked what happened, Shields told his supervisors that he was in the room for “30 minutes. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less,” according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. He also said the video was grainy.

Shields actually observed the jury for more than two hours, according to the state supreme court. Shields “misrepresented and was deceitful regarding the reason he entered the security room, the length of time he watched the jury, and what he observed,” the state supreme court concluded.

Shields “not only observed the jury for over two hours, he failed to disclose that he was doing so to the court, or opposing counsel, even when dealing with jury questions. This is egregious behavior,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said.

Shields and the other prosecutor self-reported the matter to the Oklahoma Bar Association.

Shields agreed to resign and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in which he acknowledged violating a law that bans observing or recording jurors. He specified, however, that he had no intent to break the law.

Shields argued that he received no advantage by observing the jury, and he had watched others—including judges and prosecutors—listen to juries when deliberations got loud.

The state supreme court cited several mitigating factors. They included Shields’ military service, his acceptance of responsibility for his actions, his self-reporting of the incident to the Oklahoma Bar Association, and his cooperation in the investigation that followed.

He has been “diligent in completing the terms” of the deferred prosecution agreement and has entered into an agreement with Lawyers Helping Lawyers, a referral service for lawyers, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said.

Shields’ lawyer, Sheila Naifeh, told the ABA Journal that she and her client have no comment on the suspension.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Supreme Court will decide whether Oklahoma…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court will decide whether Oklahoma can fund Catholic charter school

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 27, 2025, 10:16 am CST

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether the First Amendment allows Oklahoma to fund a Catholic online school as part of its charter school program.

At issue is whether funding the school violates the establishment clause and whether excluding the school from the program violates the free exercise clause, according to cert petitions here and here in the two consolidated cases.

The “blockbuster” cases could “redraw the line between church and state by allowing government to establish and directly fund religious schools for the first time,” the Washington Post reports.

The cert grant follows a 2022 Supreme Court decision holding that Maine could not exclude religious schools from a publicly funded tuition assistance program.

Other publications covering the cert grant include SCOTUSblog, CNN, Law360, Reuters and the New York Times. How Appealing links to additional coverage.

The school, formed by the Oklahoma archdioceses of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma, would include religious teachings in its lessons. The state’s virtual charter school board approved the school in June 2023.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in June 2024 that funding the school violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, the Oklahoma Constitution and a state law governing charter schools. The decision said government control over the school made it a state actor.

The ruling was a win for Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who had opposed funding the school. Other Republican office holders had supported the school, however.

Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School, told the New York Times that a Supreme Court decision that allows funding “would represent nothing less than a sea change in constitutional law.”

“It is difficult to overstate the significance of this opinion for our constitutional order and the larger American society,” Driver said.

The cases are Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond. The case pages are here and here.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

An Oklahoma man was sentenced for killing his girlfriend’s grandparents and burying their bodies in their own backyard.

Lucas Anthony Walker, 22, was sentenced to 35 years in federal prison for the murders of Deborah and Larry Dutton, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced in a Friday press release. Walker pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder.

The victims were murdered in their home in Dewey, about 50 miles north of Tulsa, on Dec. 19, 2022.

Their bodies were found the following month in their backyard, reported Andy Dossett of the Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise.

An Oklahoma woman was arrested after she allegedly threatened a senior center resident with a knife and tried to blow up his oxygen machine.

Marketta Bates, 33, was taken into custody on Jan. 20 after an incident the same day at the Jeltz Senior Center in Oklahoma City. According to a police report obtained by KOKH, a local Fox affiliate, officers responded to calls about an assault at the center. When they arrived, they found Bates in a common area where a chaotic scene was taking place. The alleged victim, who was not named, told police that Bates pointed a knife at him after she threatened to light his oxygen tank on fire. Police saw the alleged victim’s oxygen tank on the ground near him, leaking liquid.

A teen accused of stabbing his mom to death in Florida — two years after claiming to kill his dad in self-defense — can be heard talking to his grandmother in a newly-released bodycam video about how he told his mother, “I’m not a murderer,” less than a year before allegedly taking her life.

“I was saying, ‘Mom, I’m not a psychopath,”” Collin Griffith, 17, can be heard telling his grandmother in a bodycam video captured by a deputy with the Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office and released by local Fox affiliate WFTX on Tuesday.

As seen on bodycam, Oklahoma mother Tina Ramirez invoked her right to remain silent when Piedmont police arrested her for allegedly abusing her children.

Her husband, Anthony Ibeziako, spoke a fair bit, however.

“This is not a normal family. This is some f—ing prison or some s—,” he told an investigator on March 19, citing the number of cameras at home.

“Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking. Thank you,” said the investigator, who spent the interrogation exasperated with Ibeziako.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Opioid suits can’t be based on nuisance law…

Tort Law

Opioid suits can’t be based on nuisance law in Ohio, top state court rules in $650M win for pharmacies

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 12, 2024, 3:23 pm CST

A decision by the Ohio Supreme Court on the state’s product-liability law is good news for three national pharmaceutical chains ordered to pay more than $650 million for contributing to the opioid epidemic.

The state supreme court ruled Dec. 10 that the Ohio Product Liability Act eliminated all common-law nuisance claims in connection with the sale of products, Court News Ohio reports. The state supreme court ruled after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati asked for a ruling on the impact of the state law as amended.

The 6th Circuit certified the question to the Ohio Supreme Court in an appeal of a $650.6 million judgment against CVS, Walmart and Walgreens. The lawsuit was among several bellwether cases used to test claims and defenses chosen from about 3,000 opioid suits consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Two Ohio counties had contended that the damages awarded were for abatement of the nuisance, rather than for compensatory damages. As a result, the law didn’t bar their claims, they argued.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled, however, that the type of relief requested is immaterial under the law as written. The state supreme court also rejected the counties’ claim that the nuisance suit didn’t meet the definition of a product-liability claim because there were no allegations of a product defect.

The three drug companies praised the ruling, Bloomberg Law reports. Walgreens said in a statement the decision “allows us to put this litigation behind us so we can continue focusing on the health and well-being of our patients, customers and team members in northern Ohio and across the country.”

Peter H. Weinberger represented the plaintiffs—Lake County and Trumbull County in Ohio. He told Bloomberg Law that the decision “will have a devastating impact on communities and their ability to police corporate misconduct.”

Nationwide, he said, opioid settlements with drugmakers, distributors and pharmacies total nearly $60 billion. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision “undermines the very legal basis that drove this result,” Weinberger told Bloomberg Law.

The Ohio Supreme Court is the second top state court to rule that public-nuisance laws cannot be used in opioid suits.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held in November 2021 that Johnson & Johnson’s opioid marketing did not create a public nuisance because it concerned the sale of a lawful product. The decision overturned a $465 million verdict.

A mother in Oklahoma is accused of drunkenly trying to leave her infant children at a 7-Eleven gas station so she could drive somewhere to have sex.

Amber Adams was taken into custody earlier this year and charged with two counts of felony child neglect, court records reviewed by Law&Crime show.

A witness at the Oklahoma City 7-Eleven on June 6, 2024, called 911 and reported seeing Adams, who appeared to be very intoxicated, pull into the station and stop at one of the gas pumps, according to a report from Oklahoma City CBS affiliate KWTV.

The caller reportedly told the 911 dispatcher that Adams got out of the car and opened the passenger door. She then reached in and “grabbed a baby” by the arm as if the child “was a rag doll.” Adams then reportedly “tossed the baby to the ground.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge accused in drive-by shootings has progressive…

Judiciary

Judge accused in drive-by shootings has progressive brain disease, court filing says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 3, 2024, 10:14 am CDT

An Oklahoma judge accused in two drive-by shootings has frontotemporal dementia, a disease that can cause “bizarre out-of-character behavior” changes, his lawyers said in an Aug. 28 court filing.

Judge Brian Lovell, 59, of Garfield County, Oklahoma, is seeking medical retirement, according to the court filing by his lawyers, Stephen Jones and William Jewell.

The Enid News & Eagle, the Oklahoman and KWTV News 9 have coverage.

Lovell faces criminal charges in drive-by shootings in Texas and Oklahoma.

Lovell was arrested in an alleged shooting spree in Austin, Texas, in September. He was accused of shooting at eight parked cars from his vehicle and twice rear-ending another driver. Lovell acknowledged rear-ending another car but said he couldn’t remember the alleged shootings and doesn’t know why he would have fired his gun. Two handguns were found in his car.

Lovell is also accused of shooting at his brother-in-law’s home in Bison, Oklahoma, in February 2023. He became a suspect after his Texas arrest. Police say the same gun was used in both shootings, according to the Enid News & Eagle.

The frontotemporal diagnosis was revealed in a court filing seeking to avoid Lovell’s removal from office without a hearing. The removal petition accuses Lovell of bias in his courtroom and affairs with two bailiffs that included courthouse sex, according to the articles.

After Lovell’s September arrest, Jones told the Oklahoman that he remembers the judge as “always congenial, reasonable.”

The court filing said frontotemporal dementia “is progressive until death, and there is no known treatment or cure,” according to the Enid News & Eagle.

The court filing said symptoms of the disease include “loss of memory, irritability, bizarre out-of-character behavior, sudden inappropriate impulses, impaired judgment, … a change in personality, decreased inhibitions, and subtle episodes of apathy.”

According to information cited by the Oklahoman from the Mayo Clinic, symptoms of frontotemporal dementia depend of the portion of the brain affected.