Some Jewish groups are urging the Supreme Court to weigh in on a series of cases related to religious liberty and separation of church and state before the justices in the current term.

Over the next month, the court is expected to hear three such cases that could have consequences for Jewish institutions: One regarding public funding for religious schools, another about parents’ control over school curricula based on their religious beliefs and a third on the tax-exempt status of religiously affiliated organizations.

In one case, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond, the justices are being asked to consider whether a state may exclude religious schools from its taxpayer-funded charter school program based on concerns around the separation of church and state.

The Oklahoma charter school, if established, would be the first case in which public funds would directly fund a religious school, as compared to previous Supreme Court decisions that have allowed parents to use public school vouchers to pay for religious education at private schools.

The state’s Supreme Court blocked the creation of St. Isidore, whose founders are now appealing to the Supreme Court to overturn their decision. Oral arguments are set for April 30.

The push has split Republicans and religious leaders in Oklahoma, some of whom argue that creating a religious charter school would be unconstitutional. Oklahoma Attorney General Genter Drummond argued that it would “open the floodgates and force taxpayers to fund all manner of religious indoctrination, including radical Islam or even the Church of Satan.”

The Orthodox Union filed a brief supporting St. Isidore. 

“The Supreme Court has already ruled multiple times that state and local governments cannot engage in legislative acrobatics to exclude religious schools from public funding opportunities that are available to others,” Nathan Diament, the OU’s executive director for public policy, said in a statement. “We hope the Court will use this latest case to drop the hammer and declare without question that religious discrimination is unconstitutional.” 

The OU said in a release that a ruling in favor of St. Isidore could open the possibility of creating Jewish charter schools, making Jewish education more accessible to families, and “stop local governments from concocting new ways to deny religious schools access to the same pot of public funding as non-sectarian schools.”

The Court has ruled repeatedly that public funding for religious schooling does not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and is constitutional. The OU’s brief argues that states are attempting to subvert that precedent and continue to block public funding to religious schools.

The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty also filed a brief in the case in support of the school, joined by a pair of Muslim groups.

JCRL general counsel Howard Slugh explained that the court will have to decide, first, whether a charter school is functionally a public or private school and, second, whether it’s permissible for a charter school to be religious.

“We’ve made two main points. One, the schools … are important for religious minorities. They’re important for Jews and Muslims. Tuition is a really big burden on Jews and Muslims,” Slugh told Jewish Insider. 

“And No. 2, we made a legal argument that given the attorney general’s repeated statements all throughout this case that show he is opposed to this school not because of any legal objection, not that he thinks that it violates the Establishment Clause but because of his animus towards particularly Islam.” The court should look to past precedent finding that states can’t discriminate against minority faiths as well as consider the case tainted by his bias, Slugh continued.

JCRL also filed a brief in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which pertains to whether public schools must inform parents about and allow them to opt their children out of instruction on gender and sexuality based on religious objections. 

The specific case relates to a Maryland public school using LGBTQ-themed storybooks. Lower courts have ruled against the parents seeking an opt-out.

Constitutional attorney Nathan Lewin also filed a brief in the case; Lewin often leads briefs on behalf of Orthodox Jewish organizations but in this case submitted the brief in his personal capacity.

He said that precedent supports the need for “reasonable accommodation for sincere religious practice and belief” and that the parents did not relinquish their right to “direct their education of their children” by enrolling them in Maryland public schools.

“The State of Maryland must accommodate its public-school instruction to the legitimate and nonharmful beliefs of Maryland parents whose religious beliefs conflict with otherwise prescribed curricular teaching on sexual orientation and gender identity,” Lewin wrote in his brief. “In this case reasonable accommodation is simple and elementary. Maryland must grant the relief sought by the parents.”

Oral arguments are set for April 22.

JCRL also filed a brief in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, in which the court heard oral arguments on Monday.

That case centers around whether the Catholic Charities Bureau should qualify for an exemption to the state’s unemployment tax because its work is motivated by religious belief. The group has previously been subject to the tax. 

The state of Wisconsin has argued that Catholic Charities is not exempt because its usual services don’t involve religious teachings. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in support of that view.

Slugh argued that a requirement that a group proselytize as part of its charitable work to be considered a religious organization would be “discriminatory” against Jewish groups involved in charitable social services work, who do not engage in such practices.

The justices appeared inclined during oral arguments to side with Catholic Charities, according to the Associated Press.