Supreme Court Won't Hear Charter School's Attempt to Mandate Skirt Uniforms for Girls

Chivalry Dress Code Struck Down: Supreme Court Declines Charter School Case

The Supreme Court, on Monday, refused to review the lawsuit involving a North Carolina charter school's attempt to enforce a mandatory skirt uniform for its female students. Civil liberties activists saw the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the lower court's conclusion that the contentious program, which purported to foster "chivalry," was illegal, as a success. Social conservatives who thought that charter schools would be free from constitutional safeguards are likewise disappointed by this verdict, especially in light of the court's earlier decision enabling public school vouchers for religious institutions.. The implications of this case could have extended to charter schools nationwide, which function as public schools operated by private organizations.

Co

nstitutional Rights and the Impact on Charter Schools

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represented two parents and one kid who were contesting the school's clothing policy, expressed delight with the ruling.Ria Tabacco Mar of the ACLU emphasized that Charter Day School's argument, if accepted, would have endangered the constitutional rights of 3.6 million public charter school students across the country. This ruling ensures that charter schools must abide by the same constitutional protections as other public institutions.

Charter Schools: Public vs. Private

Due to their financing and compliance with state board of education regulations, charter schools—even though they are run by private organizations—are regarded as public institutions. The state statute in North Carolina, where the lawsuit first surfaced, expressly classifies charter schools as public schools, subjecting them to the equal-protection provision of the 14th Amendment. The court highlighted that 95% of Charter Day's funding comes from public sources, further solidifying the argument that charter schools are not exempt from constitutional obligations. While the specific arrangements may vary from state to state, other charter schools across the nation face similar requirements.

Implications for Charter Schools and Religious Organizations

Ten states, led by Texas, joined Charter Day in requesting Supreme Court intervention to establish that public charter schools are not bound by the equal-protection clause. Religious organizations also expressed concern, fearing potential challenges to the practices of faith-based adoption agencies, charities, and health-care providers. However, because the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, charter schools—regardless of their affiliations—must abide by the law.

The Biden Administration's Position

The Biden administration sided with the U.S. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals requested that the Supreme Court affirm its judgment. They argued that ruling in favor of Charter Day would enable states to evade constitutional limitations by delegating core governmental functions to private entities. Drawing a distinction from a previous case involving a Christian school in Maine, the administration emphasized that Maine's unique circumstances justified the school's access to federal funds. Unlike Maine, North Carolina does not have a history of relying on private schools for education in sparsely populated areas while allowing them to maintain independence.

The Future of Charter Schools and Religious Education

Conservatives in various states have actively expanded programs that allocate public funds to religious schools through voucher systems. However, there is no uniform regulation regarding private schools' compliance with special education services, admission policies, or nondiscrimination laws. Advocates for religious education thought the Supreme Court would clear the way for publicly financed religious charter schools to include religious instruction without going against the separation of church and state. Nonetheless, with the court declining the Charter Day case, this outcome remains uncertain.

Skirt Policy and Title IX

Even if Charter Day had been considered a non-state actor, the school might still have been compelled to abandon the skirt policy. The 4th Circuit did not rule on whether the clothing restriction broke Title IX, which forbids sex discrimination in institutions receiving federal funding.

Student Opposition and Lawsuit

Keely Burks, a seventh-grade student at Charter Day School, initiated a petition challenging the skirt policy. Burks, in her statement during the case, explained that wearing skirts made her feel cold in winter and restricted her comfort and mobility throughout the year. She also mentioned how boys would make inappropriate jokes during fire drills, highlighting the discomfort caused by the policy. Burks and the parents of two other children filed a lawsuit against the school. One of the parents, Bonnie Peltier, complained that her 5-year-old daughter's freedom of movement was restricted by the regulation. Peltier wrote in the lawsuit that she wants her daughter to grow up believing in her own capabilities and not rely on male classmates for protection.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision not to review the case of Charter Day School's skirt policy sets an important precedent for charter schools across the United States. It reinforces the understanding that charter schools must adhere to constitutional protections for their students. The court's decision assures that charter schools, regardless of their connections, are subject to constitutional restrictions, notwithstanding the hopes of some for exclusions based on religious grounds.This decision upholds civil liberties and equal rights for all students, promoting a more inclusive and fair educational environment.