IDRA Federal Advocacy Action Alert – July 2, 2025
In This Issue
- Supreme Court Leaves in Place Oklahoma Ruling Denying State Charter School Funding to Religious Schools
- Students Betrayed by Federal Vouchers in Colossal Bill Passed by Congress
- Mass Firing Plans at Education Department Sparks Legal Battle
Students Betrayed by Federal Vouchers in Colossal Bill Passed by Congress
By Morgan Craven, J.D.
Congressional leaders inserted a private school voucher program into the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” following weeks of negotiations, procedural issues, and opposition from families, teachers and advocates across the country. It marks the first time in U.S. history that a national voucher bill has passed and been signed by the president.
This federal voucher will siphon billions of public tax dollars away from public services, for the benefit of individuals supporting private school voucher programs. Specifically, it will provide a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to people who donate money to “scholarship granting organizations” that provide funds to individual families to use for their child’s education.
The law provides no cap on the funding for the program, potentially costing tens of billions of dollars each year. Many details of how the vouchers will operate will be left to federal and state regulation. States can decide whether or not to accept the program.
The program is available to families whose household income is less than 300% of the area median income. And the law caps the individual contributions that are eligible for the tax credit at $1,700 each year.
All vouchers hurt public schools and the diverse children in them. This country needs to strengthen public schools, not weaken them, to ensure every child has a fair shot at a quality education
This national voucher was passed as the administration pushes forward other elements of its harmful anti-public education agenda, including stripping funding from schools. Public schools across the country still have not received nearly $7 billion in federal funds for afterschool programs, teacher supports, and English learners that have already been appropriated by Congress and were due for distribution on July 1.
As we push for the release of these critical funds, IDRA also will examine the impact of the new voucher on public education and on the millions of students who national leaders are leaving behind.
Mass Firing Plans at Education Department Sparks Legal Battle
By Avery Foy
The plans for firing of thousands of U.S. Department of Education employees has destabilized critical civil rights programs and services and led to a legal battle that could reshape the boundaries of executive power over federal agencies.
The Department of Education is a federal agency that provides programs that are invaluable to the U.S. education system. The department is comprised of 17 offices that focus on critical aspects of education, including enforcing civil rights protections through the Office for Civil Rights.
Led by the president, the executive branch is responsible for enforcing federal laws and overseeing federal agencies. However, Congress is responsible for creating, funding and closing federal agencies through its lawmaking power.
Secretary Linda McMahon expressed support for President Trump’s goal of cutting the Department of Education shortly after being sworn in. On March 11, 2025, the department announced plans for a significant cut in its workforce.
Nine days later, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Education to begin taking necessary steps to facilitate closing the department. The following day, President Trump announced that special needs programs and federal student loan management would be transferred out of the department. As a result, nearly half of the department employees were fired.
New York and 20 other states filed a federal lawsuit on March 12, 2025, against Secretary McMahon and President Trump. When several school districts and labor organizations filed similar suits against U.S. Department of Education and President Trump on March 24, 2025, the courts consolidated both cases into one: State of New York v. McMahon.
In filing the cases, plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ actions violate the U.S. Constitution by exceeding executive authority and rendering the department unable to fulfill its congressionally mandated responsibilities. They contend that the mass firings effectively dismantled a congressionally-created agency, which exceeds the executive branch’s power.
The plaintiffs also assert that the department’s actions were arbitrary and capricious and exceeded the agency’s statutory authority. In response, the defendants maintained they were not eliminating the Department of Education but rather improving its efficiency through organizational restructuring.
On May 22, 2025, the federal district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the reinstatement of Department of Education employees and blocking the transfer to other departments of special education and federal student loan programs. Specifically, the court ordered the reinstatement of all laid off Office for Civil Rights employees after finding that the layoffs had left the remaining staff unable to handle incoming complaints.
The court also ordered that the Trump administration could not take any further action until the merits of the case are litigated. However, this week, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower court order that halted the plaintiffs from implementing the mass firings. Despite leaving the door open to future challenges, the Supreme Court’s unsigned order enables the Trump administration to move forward with the mass firings for now.
This is the beginning of a long road of litigation over the future of the U.S. Department of Education and, more broadly, over the balance of powers between the President and Congress. IDRA will continue to support students and public schools as we fight to protect programs and funding for students in public schools.
Supreme Court Leaves in Place Oklahoma Ruling Denying State Charter School Funding to Religious Schools
By Adiba Chowdhury
In another ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the longstanding principle of separation of church and state. On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 4–4 decision in St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond, leaving in place an Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling that taxpayer money could not be used to establish and fund religious public charter schools.
In 2023, Oklahoma’s Catholic dioceses proposed St. Isidore to provide faith-based education through the state’s charter school system, especially targeting rural areas. The state’s charter school board approved the application, sparking debate over whether public funds can support religious instruction.
Supporters of the initiative, including Oklahoma’s governor and members of the charter school board, said that rejecting the school just because it was religious violated the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution. Generally speaking, this clause in the First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with free exercise of religion.
Opponents, including Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, argued that if the state funds and oversees the school, then the school cannot promote religion. In other words, the establishment clause of the First Amendment applies, which prohibits the government from promoting or funding religion. Drummond emphasized the public nature of the state’s charter schools, which are publicly funded, follow state testing rules, obey federal anti-discrimination laws, and must accept all students.
The Attorney General’s Office filed a lawsuit to stop the school’s charter, which the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld, writing that the state would be “directly funding a religious school and encouraging students to attend it.” The Oklahoma Supreme Court found that as a public charter school, the establishment of St. Isidore would violate the prohibition against state promotion of religion.
St. Isidore’s lawyers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In recent cases, the court has sided with religious groups seeking public funding, such as allowing religious schools to access playground resurfacing funds in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017), tax-credit scholarship programs in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), and tuition assistance in Carson v. Makin (2022).
However, during oral arguments, Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote opinions in the previous religious school funding cases, remarked that state involvement with religion in this case seemed “much more comprehensive” than in past cases.
Justices Alito, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch appeared sympathetic to the school’s arguments, while Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson were more skeptical. Justice Gorsuch expressed concern about a possible “boomerang effect,” where increased government funding of religious charter schools could lead to more state control over them.
Justice Barrett recused herself, possibly due to ties with scholars supporting St. Isidore’s case. The final opinion was unsigned, although the reactions to oral arguments suggest how each justice voted.
Currently, at least 45 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal charter school program all require charter schools to be non-religious. If the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of St. Isidore, it could have opened the door for religious schools across the country to receive taxpayer funding.
Though the opinion only applies in Oklahoma where the case originated, the choice to leave the lower court’s decision unchanged is consistent with well-settled legal principles and should serve as a warning to other states seeking to enact similar policies.
For more information about IDRA’s policy work, please contact Morgan Craven, J.D., IDRA’s National Director of Policy, Advocacy and Community Engagement at morgan.craven@idra.org.
For more information about IDRA’s legal work, contact Paige Duggins-Clay, J.D., IDRA’s Chief Legal Analyst at paige.duggins-clay@idra.org.
