This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court just days ago declared unconstitutional a scheme by school officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, to impose mandatory LGBT indoctrination on children as young as three years old.
The practical effect of the ruling was to force school officials to allow parents to opt their children out of the offensive teachings, over the protests by the district that it really didn't have the ability to manage such a situation.
It was because of the obvious scheming in which officials insisted on feeding children a reading diet of books that "normalized" LGBT beliefs, including the scientifically impossible concept that boys can turn into girls, and the district's instructions to teachers to ridicule and correct students who disagreed.
The school, with its agenda, moved well beyond exposing children to other beliefs, according an analysis posted online at Scotusblog.
It moved into requiring students to adopt the school's "certain values and beliefs," in short, its religion.
The analysis charged, "The court didn't say that merely exposing children to ideas contrary to their faith is unconstitutional. [Justice Samuel] Alito acknowledged that not every curriculum dispute triggers a free exercise claim. The key, he explained, is the combination of normative messaging and institutional reinforcement. The majority pointed not only to the content of the books, which portrayed same-sex marriage and gender transition as joyful and self-affirming, but also to the teacher guidance documents distributed by MCPS.
"Those documents instructed teachers on how to respond to student questions or objections. If a child said that 'a boy can't marry a boy,' teachers were told to respond, 'Two men who love each other can decide they want to get married.' If a student said a character can't be a boy if he was born a girl, the teacher should say, 'That comment is hurtful.' One prompt advised teachers to explain that '[w]hen we're born, people make a guess about our gender and label us 'boy' or 'girl' based on our body parts. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong.'
"Teachers were told to '[d]isrupt either/or thinking' and were discouraged from presenting these topics as optional or neutral," the analysis said.
"In short, this was not passive exposure to diversity. It was, in the court's words, a curriculum 'designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' And when combined with mandatory attendance, a lack of opt-out rights, and the young age of the students – some as young as five – the court found that this amounted to more than discomfort. It was a constitutional burden on religious formation."
The analysis noted the school was imposing "moral instruction for young children without offering a way out."
The case was brought against the school by parents who charged that the school was violating the Constitution by imposing on their protected religious rights, with which the Supreme Court agreed.
The court found the school imposed on young children "real pressure to conform" to the school's religion.
"For advocates working at the intersection of religious liberty and public education, this case is both a warning and a roadmap. The warning is clear: Ignoring procedural pluralism – by eliminating opt-outs and dismissing religious objections as mere bigotry – risks violating constitutional protections. But the roadmap is more hopeful. If school districts want to honor inclusion without coercion, they must offer parents meaningful ways to participate and dissent. Opt-out policies, clear notice, and open dialogue with families aren't threats to diversity – they're how pluralism works in practice," the analysis found.
It said, "When public schools act as both educators and moral guides, they carry a responsibility to make space for conscience, not just as a matter of fairness, but as a matter of constitutional law."
President Donald Trump nominated Alina Habba to remain as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, the Daily Caller reported. Habba was one of Trump's personal attorneys and made waves after arresting Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and bringing charges against another Democratic lawmaker.
In March, Habba was sworn into the interim position but will require formal confirmation in the Senate to remain. At the time she was first appointed to the position, Trump praised Habba for her success in representing him in his numerous civil cases.
The president promised that Habba would serve well in the position. "Alina will lead with the same diligence and conviction that has defined her career, and she will fight tirelessly to secure a Legal System that is both 'Fair and Just' for the wonderful people of New Jersey," Trump said on his Truth Social.
In May, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested for allegedly attempting to accompany New Jersey Democratic Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Robert Menendez, and LaMonica McIver into the Delaney Hall immigrant detention facility. They showed up without first asking for permission for a tour.
The lawmakers were barred from entry, and Baraka got into an argument with agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He was arrested and later charged with trespassing, though the charges were eventually dropped.
Video of the altercation made the rounds on social media, showing Baraka, who made Newark a so-called sanctuary city for illegal immigrants, being arrested by ICE agents. Habba shared news of his arrest to X, formerly Twitter, at the time.
"The Mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself from the ICE detention center in Newark, New Jersey this afternoon. He has been taken into custody," Habba said in her post.
"NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW," Habba added. The charges against McIver remained as she allegedly "assaulted, impeded, and interfered with law enforcement" while trying to disrupt ICE operations.
The GOP has a slight majority in the Senate and could confirm Habba, though Democrats will surely object to her nomination. She will have to contend with the aftermath of Baraka's stunt and the ensuing arrest and lawsuit.
According to NBC News, Baraka, who is also running for governor of New Jersey, is suing Habba over what occurred during the dention facility stunt. The lawsuit alleges that the security guard who works for a private prison company contracted to run Delaney Hall had admitted Baraka in an attempt to quell an unruly crowd that was gathering to protest.
It was after that point that Baraka says 20 agents from Homeland Security, "many armed and masked, descended on the Mayor and members of Congress without any attempt to calm fears or ensure peace." Barak believes he was arrested "without probable cause."
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice sued other New Jersey sanctuary cities, including Paterson, Hoboken, Jersey City, and Newark, which Baraka has also taken issue with. "What we refuse to do is turn our city into an arm of federal immigration enforcement, which the courts have already ruled is not our role," he said.
The Democrats are enraged that Habba could remain in this position, but Republicans are cheering her actions. She has demonstrated that she is ready to do the job that Trump has promised to do when it comes to illegal immigration.
A federal judge rejected the Trump administration's removal of temporary protection status for 520,000 Haitians, Fox News reported. The judge ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump's Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, did not comply with Congress's recommendations for phasing out the protections.
On Friday, a DHS spokesperson said ending the temporary protection status of these migrants is necessary to preserve the immigration system. If the status allows them to stay even after the status is no longer necessary due to improving conditions, it becomes a de facto amnesty
"The environmental situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home. We encourage these individuals to take advantage of the Department’s resources in returning to Haiti, which can be arranged through the CBP Home app," the spokesperson said last Friday before the judge's decision.
"Haitian nationals may pursue lawful status through other immigration benefit requests, if eligible," the spokesperson added. However, Tuesday's decision by U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan in Brooklyn negates that move.
Noem sought to have the designation stripped before Aug. 3 with a final effective date of Sept. 2. However, Cogan decided that "Secretary Noem does not have statutory or inherent authority to partially vacate a country’s TPS designation."
He said that her move was "unlawful" because of this, as she shortened the length of time for the designation to apply. "Plaintiffs are likely to (and, indeed, do) succeed on the merits," Cogan said in his decision.
It was also Cogan's opinion that allowing Haitians to stay past the time it's necessary will "far outweigh" any downsides for the U.S. He was worried that these people's lives have become too enmeshed in the U.S. for them to make an unexpected return to their homeland.
"When the Government confers a benefit over a fixed period of time, a beneficiary can reasonably expect to receive that benefit at least until the end of that fixed period. Plaintiffs have enrolled in schools, taken jobs, and begun courses of medical treatment in the United States in reliance on Haiti’s TPS designation lasting until at least February 3, 2026," the judge said, according to the Epoch Times.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is trying to close as many immigration loopholes as possible as promised during the campaign. With conditions improving in Haiti, it seems the program has outlived its useful life, and Noem moved to do something about it.
Despite what the judge said, Noem believes extending TPS for Haitians, especially in light of changing circumstances, is not in America's best interests. "DHS records indicate that there are Haitian nationals who are TPS recipients who have been the subject of administrative investigations for fraud, public safety, and national security," a notice from the DHS stated.
"These issues underscore a conflict with the national interest of the United States," it added. TPS was created as part of the Immigration Act of 1990 as a way to allow citizens from certain nations facing hardships, including disasters, war, or other unsafe conditions, to take refuge in the U.S.
The status is typically granted in 18-month stretches but can be extended. Haiti has faced numerous setbacks in recent years, including natural disasters, political unrest, and widespread crime, that has allowed for it to fall under TPS.
However, with those conditions waning, the Department of Homeland Security believes TPS no longer applies to Haiti and has offered $1,000 and a complimentary plane ticket home. The judge struck that option down in a move which has surely angered Trump as he pushes for a more secure border.
There's no reason the U.S. should be responsible for the entire world's population in need. There are many Americans who are also in need and could benefit from aid and resources while Democrats give handouts to people from all corners of the world.
The Supreme Court made a landmark decision Tuesday, ruling 6-3 in favor of a South Carolina law that prohibits Medicaid patients from using planned services provided by Planned Parenthood, The Washington Times reported.
This ruling allows states the ability to limit Medicaid funding to specific healthcare providers, including those that offer abortion services.
The decision is a significant setback for Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides healthcare services, including abortions, to women across the United States. By upholding South Carolina's restriction, the court has set a precedent that could lead other states to implement similar measures, further restricting access to reproductive healthcare.
The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, arose from a South Carolina law enacted in 2018. South Carolina's decision to limit Medicaid funding was challenged by Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which argued that the restriction violated federal law. The law in question states Medicaid recipients have the right to select their healthcare providers.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, in his majority opinion, explained that the responsibility “generally belongs to the federal government” to ensure compliance with Medicaid's spending conditions. He emphasized that it is Congress and the executive branch's role, not individual states, to manage the enforcement of these federal programs.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson presented a fervent dissent, arguing that the ruling disrupts legislation in place since 1871. She asserted that the Medicaid Act imposes conditions on participating states, one of which allows recipients to choose their healthcare providers without state interference.
With the Supreme Court's ruling, other states may now feel empowered to implement similar restrictions on Medicaid funding for facilities such as Planned Parenthood. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson praised the decision, asserting it reaffirmed state control over Medicaid programs without interference from federal judges or advocacy groups.
Nancy Northup, CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, expressed concern over the impact on healthcare access, stating that the decision benefits “extremists” who would deny people access to crucial medical screenings. The ruling, she argued, overrides the intent of Medicaid law and compromises patient choice in healthcare providers.
Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, supported the ruling, stating that tax dollars should not be used to support the abortion industry. This sentiment echoes ongoing debates in the federal government, where a Republican-led House continues efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, although it remains uncertain whether the Senate will support such measures.
South Carolina's rule faced mixed decisions in lower courts, highlighting the legal complexities surrounding Medicaid funding and healthcare provider choice. These mixed outcomes ultimately led to the need for a resolution by the nation's highest court.
One case involved a Medicaid recipient from South Carolina who required birth control due to a medical condition, seeking services at Planned Parenthood. The restriction hindered their ability to access the necessary healthcare, underscoring the practical implications of such laws on everyday individuals.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. mentioned that the Supreme Court will conclude its current term on Friday, with other significant decisions yet to be announced. This case adds to a series of contentious issues recently addressed by the court.
The ruling has stirred varied reactions across the political spectrum. Supporters of the decision argue for states' rights and fiscal responsibility in the use of taxpayer money, particularly regarding healthcare services associated with abortion.
Conversely, opponents raise concerns about the accessibility of reproductive healthcare services, emphasizing the essential role of Planned Parenthood in offering affordable health services to Medicaid patients.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Reports have confirmed that John McConnell Jr., a federal judge in Rhode Island, long has been a financial supporter of Democrats, contributing some $60,000 to the party's candidates.
He was nominated to the bench by Democrat Barack Obama.
He's a former treasurer of the Rhode Island Democratic Committee and chaired the campaign of Providence Mayor David Cicilline.
But what's gotten attention now is that he's also documented as being part of an organization that was funded, at least partly, by grants from the federal government.
Then at the same time he, instead of recusing himself from the case over government grants and funding, sided with a team of Democrat state attorneys general who oppose President Donald Trump's agenda to freeze and cut federal funds being handed out through grants to nongovernmental groups.
A report at Fox News explains that U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., are asking the judicial council for the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to investigate McConnell over that issue.
Their charge is that the judge has a financial conflict of interest in the outcome of the issue.
McConnell has been making decisions in "a pivotal funding freeze case in Rhode Island brought by 22 states with Democratic attorneys general. The case centers on the Office of Management and Budget's order in January that federal agencies implement a multibillion-dollar suspension of federal benefits."
States say they get the money no matter what because Congress approved it, and McConnell agreed, blocking Trump from suspending those payments.
The fight now has gone over McConnell's head, to the 1st Circuit.
But in his ruling, he had claimed the Trump suspension "fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government." He claimed the freeze wasn't rational and showed no "thoughtful consideration" for the consequences.
Issa and Jordan pointed out that McConnell long has been a leader with Crossroads Rhode Island, an organization that has gotten "millions of dollars in federal and state grants."
"Given Crossroads's reliance on federal funds, Judge McConnell's rulings had the effect of restoring funding to Crossroads, directly benefitting the organization and creating a conflict of interest," Jordan and Issa wrote.
An earlier complaint over McConnell's ties to Crossroads, and his decision affecting that group's funding, was filed by America First legal.
And Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., already has filed articles of impeachment against the judge.
The jury in the sex crimes case against Sean "Diddy" Combs is showing troubling signs as experts warn of a split verdict, Fox News reported. The jury sent several notes during its first two days of deliberations, which could be a troubling sign for jurors.
Testimony concluded on Friday, with the jury beginning its deliberations on Monday. This continued into Tuesday with the jury meeting for 10 hours and sending several more notes during that time.
One of the most consequential notes pertained to the testimony of Cassie Ventura, Combs' ex-girlfriend, and a male escort. Such snags indicate that issues are not cut and dry for the jury, and attorney David S. Seltzer believes it demonstrates the necessity of sequestration.
"I don’t see how people are not influenced by outside factor. We live in a technology world where everyone wants their information now. I know the jury was instructed not to read anything, but I don’t think that was realistic given the length of the trial," Seltzer said.
The trial lasted seven weeks, but deliberations seem to be hitting several obstacles already in what should be a straightforward case. Retired NYPD inspector and Fox News contributor Paul Mauro said so far, the trial has been a "rare nail-biter" for the state's attorneys.
"The Southern District’s conviction rate is well-north of 90%. They don’t take cases to lose them," Mauro told Fox News Digital. However, that doesn't mean this is a sure thing for the prosecution.
"That said, the Diddy case has some real challenges. In the end, the evidence came down to how coerced the female victims were," Mauro added.
"As these women reached out affirmatively to Diddy, were they suffering a version of battered wife syndrome? Or was the entire thing transactional?" he went on.
"Further: Without that sexual activity, will the drug and weapons allegations suffice to demonstrate an actual racketeering entity? This is a rare nail-biter for SDNY – far from a slam-dunk. And the possibility of a split verdict here, at the least, is very real," Mauro concluded.
Experts believe that the jury's notes requesting clarification or a return to specific testimony do not bode well for the prosecution. One of the notes asked for clarification of Judge Arun Subramanian's instructions.
Another asked about exactly what distribution of drugs entailed, and these together could mean a jury that won't agree on a verdict. "Courts will always push a jury to get to a unanimous verdict, but at the end of the day, it is up to the jury if they think they can get there," Seltzer said.
"Oftentimes, when there are issues within the jury, they cannot get there, and it ends up in a hung jury," he added. Seltzer believes the answer would have been to sequester the jury, as access to news and other information about the case could cloud judgment, making a verdict unreachable.
"I have been saying from day one that it is impossible to tell people to stay off media and/or computers for six weeks-plus, when people are addicted to their devices. I think the court is relying on the admonishment, but respectfully turning a blind eye," Seltzer said.
The jury is up against the Independence Day holiday while Combs' future hangs in the balance. Combs maintains his innocence, but the rap mogul could face up to life in prison if convicted.
A federal judge in Northern California has blocked the Trump administration from stripping the union protections of two-thirds of federal workers, more than a million in all, but a recent Supreme Court ruling could spell trouble for the injunction.
Judge James Donato ruled in favor of the American Federation of Government Workers (AFGE)'s April lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's March 27 executive order.
Donato's main reasoning for the ruling was that he thought Trump's order was in retaliation for lawsuits and statements against him since taking office in January.
It's an argument AFGE has put forward, but it isn't easy to prove someone's intentions behind an action like this.
“President Trump revoked our members’ union rights in retaliation for our advocacy on behalf of federal workers and the American people, and we are grateful that Judge Donato saw through his disingenuous ‘national security’ justification and has ordered the immediate restoration of their rights,” said AFGE National President Everett Kelley.
“Federal employees have had the right to join a union and bargain collectively for decades, including during President Trump’s first term, and at no time have employees’ union rights caused concern for our nation’s national security,” he added. “Revoking these rights was clearly a retaliatory attempt to bust federal unions and wreak havoc on our nation’s workforce and the services they provide to the American people.”
Not only might this kind of shaky argument collapse on appeal, but there's also the matter of the recent Supreme Court ruling barring nationwide injunctions at the local level.
This case is specific enough--referring specifically to the six unions that filed the suit and the 950,000 federal employees covered by it--that the new ruling might not apply, but it's worth a try.
Trump is attempting to cut costs in the federal government through a reduction in force, and union protections are getting in his way as he tries to do so.
The executive order said to continue the RIF and to ignore union regulations to do so.
Not sure he will get away with that, but there's got to be a way to cut out the useless and redundant staff so government can function better.
Unions were useful once upon a time when workers didn't have even the most basic rights, but now they just perpetuate mediocrity and encourage workers not to work hard.
Trump continues to balance competing priorities to cut bloated government spending and to boost employment.
His actions along with DOGE to cut unneeded government employees were largely responsible for a .1% increase in unemployment in April, which remained unchanged at 4.2% in May.
CNN pundit Scott Jennings called out Supreme Court "hack" Elena Kagan for flip-flopping on nationwide injunctions.
In a talk at Northwestern University three years ago, Kagan said, "It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks."
And yet, when the Supreme Court put an end to the plague of nationwide injunctions that she criticized just three years ago, Kagan joined the court's other two liberals in a scathing dissent.
While the case centered on Trump's executive order targeting birthright citizenship, the court did not rule on the merits of that action. But the ruling was a seismic victory for Trump, whose agenda has been repeatedly held up by lower court judges issuing nationwide injunctions.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's sophomoric dissent, and the majority's pithy response, received significant media coverage.
Jackson's glib indifference to "legalese" was widely mocked, with the majority accusing Jackson of sidestepping an actual legal analysis to enforce her own views embracing an "imperial Judiciary."
"We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote.
While judicial supremacy has been a pain for Democratic and Republican presidents alike, the hubris of district court judges has been a particularly bad problem for Trump, who has already been hit with 25 injunctions since January.
While she did not write her own opinion, Kagan co-signed the dissents from Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor.
“It is not difficult to predict how this all ends. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,” Jackson wrote.
The unhinged response from the Supreme Court's liberal wing was clearly influenced by the fact that Trump is the current U.S. president, as Kagan's blatant hypocrisy makes all too clear.
When Joe Biden was in office, Kagan rightly criticized the absurd practice of letting unelected judges wield sweeping authority over the nation and its policies. But now that President Trump is back, she's changing her tune.
“I was trying to sort out my feelings on this matter, and I came up with a quote from a very smart lawyer, and I just want to quote it, because I think she was right when she said it, ‘It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks,'” Jennings said on CNN’s Saturday Morning Table for Five.
“Justice Elena Kagan in 2022 said that, of course, when we had a Democratic president. Now she voted against the decision on Friday,” the conservative commentator continued. “Just goes to show you that some of these folks really are hacks.”
“I’m glad they went ahead and fixed it because it’s not right that one of these individual district court judges can act like a king or a monarch and stop the elected president from acting,” Jennings added.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It's only days old, but the Supreme Court ruling that Tennessee is allowed to ban body-mutilating chemical treatments and surgeries on children already is having an impact.
On at least four other states with similar prohibitions.
Just last week, the high court affirmed a state law that bans the infliction of transgender procedures on minors. The 6-3 ruling revealed a pointedly leftist trio on the court demanding the agenda of chemically and surgically altering children to accommodate what almost always is a temporary gender dysphoria.
The majority opinion, supported by the conservative members of the court, was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling found the Tennessee law does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
It was in orders issued on Monday that the court wiped out other lower court rulings that essentially promoted the transgender ideologies, the scientific impossibility that men can become women or vice versa, as being male or female is embedded down to the DNA level and does not change.
The Washington Examiner explained the cases now are being sent back down to lower courts for reconsideration in light of the ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti.
The orders on Monday involved rulings that previously blocked similar state-level bans on transgender treatments in North Carolina, West Virginia, Idaho and Oklahoma.
"The move means each case must now be reheard under the legal standard articulated in the Skrmetti ruling, which found no violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause in a ban on medical treatments for minors who identify as transgender," the report explained.
Further, the justices declined to take up a separate case from Kentucky where families were trying to challenge a similar state law.
The appeals courts now assigned the responsibility of changing the outcomes on those cases include the 4th Circuit, 9th Circuit and 10th Circuit.
"Monday's actions come as the justices continue to weigh whether to take up additional cases, including challenges to school sports participation rules in Arizona, Idaho, and West Virginia that restrict biological boys from competing on girls sports teams," the report said.
WND reported on the Tennessee case that there are up to 20 other states with similar disputes developing.
The case revolved around the fact, according to the court, the "growing number of states restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity."
In Tennessee, SB1 "prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor for the purpose of (1) enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's biological sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's biological sex and asserted identity."
"At the same time, SB1 permits a healthcare provider to administer puberty blockers or hormones to treat a minor's congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury," the court noted.
Three "transgender minors," their parents, and a doctor challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A trial judge halted the law but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to take effect, as the law "did not trigger heightened scrutiny and satisfied rational basis review."
The ruling said SB1 "is not subject to heightened scrutiny because it does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review."
The law's classifications are based on age and medical condition.
"Classifications based on age or medical use are subject to only rational basis review," the court explained.
The court said, "Tennessee determined that administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence carries risks, including irreversible sterility, increased risk of disease and illness, and adverse psychological consequences. The legislature found that minors lack the maturity to fully understand these consequences, that many individuals have expressed regret for undergoing such treatments as minors, and that the full effects of such treatments may not yet be known. At the same time, the State noted evidence that discordance between sex and gender can be resolved through less invasive approaches. SB1's age- and diagnosis-based classifications are rationally related to these findings and the State's objective of protecting minors' health and welfare."
"In today's historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism," said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. "A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee's elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand. I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Leftists on the U.S. Supreme Court are taking their fear of parents who teach children their own religious faith "to a ludicrous level," according to commentary following last week's decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
In that case, the 6-3 majority simply said that schools are not allowed to force their own religious beliefs onto young children, through mandatory lessons and a ban on opt-outs, because that infringes on the religious rights of the parents.
The case came out of Montgomery County, Maryland, where school officials adopted that mandatory LGBT indoctrination for children as young as three years old. Originally, schools offered an opt-out for parents who didn't want the school's religious ideologies taught to their children, but the school district, faced with a flood of such demands from parents, soon decided to force all children into the lessons.
A commentary at Federalist notes what the dissenters, Sonio Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Jackson, who famously established her place in history by telling her Senate confirmation hearing she was unable to define "woman," hypothesized.
"The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, sided with the parents, saying, 'A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill … And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents' acceptance of such instruction.'"
But, the commentary noted, "That is not how the three leftists see it. In fact, they see parents — especially religious ones — as roadblocks to education."
Sotomayor wrote that schools offer children of all faiths and backgrounds an education "to practice living in our multicultural society."
"That experience is critical to our nation's civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs," she claimed.
The Federalist explained, "Sotomayor spins this irrational fear to a ludicrous level, imaging a world where religious parents will object to every imaginable lesson, opting their kids out of this and that, until the only option is for schools to teach what parents want their kids to learn."
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley also expressed concern about the extremism of Sotomayor.
It was her comments that were "the most striking in its apocalyptic take on allowing parents to remove their children from these classes. Despite the fact that various opt-outs have been allowed for parents, this one is deemed a threat to the very essence of public education."
He noted the aggressively anti-Christian school agenda: "The children are required to read or listen to stories like 'Prince & Knight' about two male knights who marry each other, and 'Love Violet' about two young girls falling in love. Another, 'Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,' discusses a biological girl who begins a transition to being a boy. Teachers were informed that this was mandatory reading, which must be assigned, and that families would not be allowed to opt out. The guidelines for teachers made clear that students had to be corrected if they expressed errant or opposing views of gender. If a child questions how someone born a boy could become a girl, teachers were encouraged to correct the child and declare, 'That comment is hurtful!'"
He said, "Teachers were specifically told to '[d]isrupt' thinking or values opposing transgender views."
TS the fight over the opt-outs developed.
But he said the "most overwrought" reaction was from the three extremists on the bench.
"There 'will be chaos for this nation's public schools' and both education and children will 'suffer' if parents are allowed to opt their children out of these lessons," he noted the leftists claimed.
"She also worried about the 'chilling effect' of the ruling, which would make schools more hesitant to offer such classes in the future."
The trio demanded that "the damage to America's public education system will be profound" and the decision supporting parents' constitutional rights "threatens the very essence of public education."
He noted the attitude was simply reflecting what other officials have claimed:
"State Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Wis.) once insisted: 'If parents want to 'have a say' in their child's education, they should homeschool or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.' Iowa school board member Rachel Wall said: 'The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.'"
The effect of the ideology is evident, he said.
"Our public schools are imploding. Some are lowering standards to achieve 'equity' and graduating students without proficiency skills. Families are objecting to the priority given to political and social agendas to make their kids better people when they lack math, science, and other skills needed to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace. … Schools are facing rising debt and severe declines in enrollment, yet unions in states like Illinois are demanding even more staff increases and larger expenditures."