Last month, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against the creation of what would have been America’s first religious charter school. The school’s Catholic founders had hoped that recent federal Supreme Court rulings would help their case. Michael A. Helfand explains the underlying question:

Charter schools come in all shapes and sizes, varying in their structure and definition across jurisdictions. But typically, they are privately operated public schools. So, can they be religious? Answering the question has become a bit of a constitutional Rorschach test: should we view prohibiting religious charter schools as prohibiting discrimination against the private religious entities seeking to operate them? Or should we view allowing religious charter schools as pushing even the new, more limited demands of church-state separation too far by allowing public schools to be religious?

Sorting through these constitutional issues, Helfand explains, doesn’t merely involve interpretation of the First Amendment, but also what jurists call the “state-action doctrine,” which one legal scholar has termed a “conceptual disaster area.” Ultimately, he concludes, only a Supreme Court decision can settle these issues—and there’s no telling how the court might rule.

In his inauguration speech, Donald Trump put forth ambitious goals for his first days in office. An additional item that should be on the agenda of his administration, and also that of the 119th Congress, should be defunding, and ideally dismantling, UNRWA. The UN Relief and Works Organization for Palestine Refugees—to give its full name—is deeply enmeshed with Hamas in Gaza, has inculcated generations of young Palestinians with anti-Semitism, and exists primarily to perpetuate the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Robert Satloff explains what must be done.

[T]here is an inherent contradiction in support for UNRWA (given its anti-resettlement posture) and support for a two-state solution (or any negotiated resolution) to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Providing relief to millions of Palestinians based on the argument that their legitimate, rightful home lies inside Israel is deeply counterproductive to the search for peace.

Last October, the Israeli parliament voted overwhelmingly to pass two laws that will come into effect January 30: a ban on UNRWA operations in Israeli sovereign territory and the severing of all Israeli ties with the agency. This includes cancellation of a post-1967 agreement that allowed UNRWA to operate freely in what was then newly occupied territory.

A more ambitious U.S. approach could score a win-win achievement that advances American interests in Middle East peace while saving millions of taxpayer dollars. Namely, Washington could take advantage of Israel’s new laws to create an alternative support mechanism that eases UNRWA out of Gaza. This would entail raising the stakes with other specialized UN agencies operating in the area. Instead of politely asking them if they can assume UNRWA’s job in Gaza, the Trump administration should put them on notice that continued U.S. funding of their own global operations is contingent on their taking over those tasks. Only such a dramatic step is likely to produce results.