The Oklahoma Attorney General issued an opinion on October 22, 2026, regarding the authority of the Statewide Charter School Board to reconsider a rejected application from the Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation. The ruling clarifies that the Board cannot rescind its previous rejection of the Foundation's application, which was initially denied on March 9, 2026, and again on October 12, 2026. This decision affects the Foundation and its efforts to establish a charter school in Oklahoma.
The opinion was requested by Representatives Ronny Johns and Ellen Pogemiller, who sought clarity on whether the Board could revisit its decision after a federal court issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a nonsectarian requirement that had been cited in the rejection. The ruling is significant as it defines the limits of the Board's powers and the legislative framework governing charter school applications in Oklahoma.
Background
The Statewide Charter School Board was established by the Oklahoma Legislature, effective July 1, 2024. It was given the authority to sponsor statewide virtual charter schools and discretionary authority to sponsor charter schools in the state. The Board consists of nine voting members, and an affirmative vote of at least five members is required for any final action.
The Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation submitted its initial application for a charter school on December 30, 2025. The Board rejected this application on February 9, 2026, providing ten reasons for the decision. The Foundation then submitted a revised application on February 17, 2026, which the Board rejected again on March 9, 2026, citing the nonsectarian requirement as the primary reason.
On September 24, 2026, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Board from enforcing the nonsectarian requirement against the Foundation. This led the Board to reconsider the Revised Application on October 12, 2026. However, the Board ultimately failed to secure the necessary five votes for approval, leaving the application rejected.
The Ruling
The Oklahoma Attorney General concluded that the Statewide Charter School Board does not have the authority to reconsider or rescind its rejection of the Foundation's Revised Application. The court ruled, "The Board may exercise only those powers the Legislature has conferred expressly or by necessary implication, and it cannot enlarge its authority by its own act." This ruling emphasizes that the Board's authority is strictly defined by the Oklahoma Legislature.
According to the opinion, the Board's process for handling charter applications is a closed, two-step sequence: it can either accept or reject an initial application and then accept or reject one revised application. The ruling stated, "The Legislature's omission of any further step is deliberate; in 2023 it eliminated the administrative appeals that formerly followed a rejection and left applicant-funded binding arbitration as the only further step." This means that once the Board rejected the Revised Application, its authority over that application ended.
Impact
The ruling has significant implications for the Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation and other similar organizations seeking to establish charter schools in Oklahoma. It clarifies that once a charter application has been rejected, the Board cannot revisit its decision, even in light of changing circumstances, such as a federal injunction. This may limit the options available to applicants who believe they have been unfairly denied.
Furthermore, the ruling reinforces the principle that administrative bodies, like the Statewide Charter School Board, can only act within the powers explicitly granted to them by legislation. This could set a precedent for future cases involving charter school applications and the authority of educational boards in Oklahoma.
What's Next
While the Attorney General's opinion is final in its interpretation of the Board's authority regarding the Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation's application, the Foundation may still pursue binding arbitration as an option following the rejection of its Revised Application. Additionally, the Foundation could submit a new application in a future cycle under the Act and the Board's rules. There are no indications that this ruling can be appealed, as it is an opinion rather than a court ruling.