education

Department of Education Cracks Down on Jefferson County’s Title IX Violations

The Department of Education (ED) concluded Jefferson County Public Schools in Colorado violated federal law by allowing male students to access female-only facilities and accommodations, and to compete in girls and women’s sports.

The agency concluded Jefferson County’s policies allowing individuals to access intimate facilities and participate in sports based on their “gender identity” discriminate against females and violate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

The ED published its findings on March 13 and gave the district 10 days to voluntarily resolve the Title IX violations or risk imminent enforcement action.

“Today’s findings reveal sweeping Title IX violations by Jefferson County Public Schools – denying fairness and equality to female students by allowing males into their private facilities, overnight accommodations, and athletics,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey.

“The District’s decision to prioritize ‘gender identity’ over ensuring equal access for its female students is unconscionable.”

The ED shared the news on X:

Education Secretary Linda McMahon welcomed the development, saying, “The Trump Administration will not relent until female athletes’ safety, opportunities, and equal protection under the law are fully restored.”

The ED issued a proposed resolution agreement requiring the district to, among other actions:

  • Rescind or revise any policies which permitted male students to access female intimate facilities, share overnight accommodations with females and compete in female sports.
  • Issue a public statement stating that it will comply with Title IX and provide instructions for how to report or file a complaint of sex discrimination under the district’s grievance policies.
  • Notify all staff, students and coaches of the district’s renewed compliance with Title IX.

Kristen Waggoner, president and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, noted that Jefferson County School District is the same district that ADF “sued for assigning an 11-year-old girl to sleep in a hotel room with a boy on an overnight trip – without parental notice.” That case will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in May.

The ED’s enforcement action is a positive development, protecting women and girls from being forced to share sex-segregated spaces and sports with males. It’s a new day at the Education Department – a far cry from the wokeness that had infected the department under the Biden administration.

Richey added,

The District must act now to end these violations and protect future generations of girls from sex discrimination. The Trump Administration will not relent until female athletes’ safety, opportunities, and equal protection under the law are fully restored.

To speak with a family help specialist or request resources, please call us at 1-800-A-FAMILY (232-6459).

If you’re concerned about what your child may be learning in school, and what helpful, practical steps you can take to protect them, check out Focus on the Family’s free resource: Equipping Parents for Back-to-School.

The FREE downloadable resource helps you be aware of what’s going on in your child’s classroom and offers guidance for how to advocate for your child in the school year ahead.

Related articles and resources:

Transgender Resources

‘Equipping Parents For Back-To-School’ – Updated Resource Empowers Parents

Loudoun County Boys Win Settlement in Title IX Case Against School District

Trump Ends Radical Indoctrination, Promotes Education Freedom

Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Women’s Sports and Spaces

Photo from Getty Images.

Montgomery County Must Pay $1.5 Million to Religious Parents After Supreme Court Ruling

The Montgomery County Board of Education will pay $1.5 million in damages to religious parents for trampling parental rights and trying to indoctrinate their children with LGBT content. The school board will also comply with court-enforced protections for parental rights.

The settlement comes after the Supreme Court ruled in June 2025 in Mahmoud v. Tayler that schools can’t force children to participate in LGBT classroom material without giving parents the right to opt out their children based on their religious beliefs.

“Public schools nationwide are on notice: running roughshod over parental rights and religious freedom isn’t just illegal – it’s costly,” Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the parents, said in a statement.

Baxter added,

This settlement enforces the Supreme Court’s ruling and ensures parents, not government bureaucrats, have the final say in how their children are raised.

The case stems from Montgomery County school board’s 2022 decision to use several LGBT children’s books in preschool through 12th grade language arts curricula. These books promote “gender transitioning, Pride parades, and pronoun preferences to children as young as three and four,” Becket, which represents the parents, states.

One book, Prince & Knight, “conveys the message that same-sex marriage should be accepted by all as a cause for celebration,” Justice Samuel Alito recounted in the Mahmoud decision.

A second book, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, presents the message that “two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex.”

Another book, IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All, portrays a “transgender child in a sex-ambiguous bathroom” and “includes a discussion guide that asserts … ‘at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender.’” The book asks very young readers, “What pronouns fit you best?”

Yet another book, Born Ready, follows the story of Penelope, a biological female, who begs her mother to help her be a boy: “Please help me, Mama. Help me to be a boy.” After her mother agrees, Penelope exclaims, “For the first time, my insides don’t feel like fire. They feel like warm, golden love.”

The implication is that “it is seriously harmful to deny a gender transition and that transitioning is a highly positive experience,” Alito summarized.

When the school board first approved the curricula, it notified parents and allowed them to opt their children out of the material. In 2023, however, the district revised its policies and eliminated opt-outs.

Multiple religious families – including Muslims, Christians and Jews – successfully challenged the policy, arguing it violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

In the Mahmoud decision, Justice Alito, writing for the Court’s majority, said, “The right of parents ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their’ children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.”

“The Board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks – combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs – substantially interferes with the religious development of their children,” Justice Alito concluded.

Now, the school board will pay a $1.5 million settlement, and a permanent injunction requires the board to “provide parents with advance notice when instructional materials addressing family life and human sexuality will be used and allow parents to opt their children out of that instruction.”

According to Becket’s 2025 Religious Freedom Index, 62% of Americans support the Court’s decision in Mahmoud.

“It took tremendous courage for these parents to stand up to the School Board and take their case all the way to the Supreme Court,” Baxter said. “Their victory reshaped the law and ensured that generations of religious parents will be able to guide their children’s upbringing according to their faith.”

To speak with a family help specialist or request resources, please call us at 1-800-A-FAMILY (232-6459).

Related articles and resources:

Resources: Sex Education

Talking About Sex And Puberty With Your Kids

How to Equip Your Teens with a Biblical Understanding of Sexuality

‘Equipping Parents For Back-To-School’ – Updated Resource Empowers Parents

Supreme Court Defends Religious Freedom, Parental Rights Over ‘LGBT’ Curriculum

Supreme Court Sympathetic to Opt-Outs for LGBT Curriculum

Photo from Shutterstock.

Court Rules Louisiana Schools Can Post Ten Commandments in Classrooms

Louisiana’s law requiring the Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms statewide can take effect, a federal appeals court decided on Friday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 12-6 to overturn a lower court decision that put Louisiana House Bill 71 (H.B. 71) on ice.

In June 2024, the Louisiana Legislature enacted H.B. 71 requiring public schools to “display the Ten Commandments in each building it uses and classroom in each school.” Displays may be paid for by public donations.

Shortly thereafter, a group of parents filed a lawsuit to block enforcement of the law, arguing H.B. 71 violated the First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses. The ACLU, ACLU of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation represented the parents in court.

A district court judge sided with the parents and granted a preliminary injunction, which was affirmed by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit.

The entire Fifth Circuit then reheard the case and now has overturned the preliminary injunction, deciding the case wasn’t ripe for judicial review, because it didn’t know how the displays would appear or how teachers would use them.

Deciding whether H.B. 71 violates the Constitution “would oblige us to hypothesize an open-ended range of possible classroom displays,” the court said. “[That] is not judging; it is guessing.”

Judge James Ho, a nominee of President Donald J. Trump, concurred with the court’s decision, but went further and argued that the law “is constitutional and consistent with our Founding traditions.”

“Our Nation’s Founders didn’t just permit religion in education – they presumed that there would be religion in education,” Judge Ho contended. “Indeed, our Founders firmly believed that our Constitution wouldn’t work without a religious people.”

“The Louisiana Ten Commandments law is not just constitutional – it affirms our Nation’s highest and most noble traditions,” Ho explained.

The ACLU called the decision “extremely disappointing,” saying it would “unnecessarily force Louisiana’s public school families into a game of constitutional whack-a-mole in every school district.”

First Liberty, a nonprofit legal aid group, applauded the court’s decision. Kelly Shackelford, First Liberty’s president and CEO, said in a statement, “We are pleased that the Fifth Circuit is allowing Louisiana’s statute that requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools to take effect.”

Shackelford added,

The Ten Commandments are part of the history and tradition of our country. …
We echo Judge Ho’s words that our Founding Fathers believed the Constitution didn’t simply permit religious education, it presumed it would take place.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision could have an effect on two other states’ laws – in Texas and Arkansas – which also require schools to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

After a lawsuit was filed against Texas’ law, the Fifth Circuit consolidated that case, Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, with the case challenging Louisiana’s law. The Texas case remains under consideration by the full slate of Fifth Circuit judges.

Texas Values, a Focus on the Family-allied state family policy counsel, praised the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, highlighting the impact it could have on Texas’ law. Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, said in a statement:

The appeals court got it right by allowing the Louisiana Ten Commandments law to go into effect. We are confident the appeals court will soon rule in favor of the Texas Ten Commandments law as well.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Stone v. Graham that a Kentucky law requiring the Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms was unconstitutional under the establishment clause.

So, you ask, why are lower courts now reconsidering the constitutionality of such laws? Good question.

The Stone decision relied on the Lemon test (created in the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtsman) which said a law violates the establishment clause if it fails to have “a secular legislative purpose.”

But in 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Lemon test in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, instead holding that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’”

In the wake of the opinion, multiple states – Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas – realized the Court’s Stone decision was left in tatters. So, they enacted laws requiring the Ten Commandments in classrooms, leading to the present legal battles.

As Judge Ho’s well-reasoned concurring opinion points out, “Stone relies on precedent that the Supreme Court has overturned. … Lemon is gone, so Stone is gone. We’re not bound by Stone any more.”

Louisiana’s law “is fully consistent with the Constitution,” Judge Ho continued, “and what’s more, it reinforces our Founders’ firm belief that the children of America should be educated about the religious foundations and traditions of our country.”

It’s possible the lawsuits challenging the Ten Commandments in classrooms end up in the U.S. Supreme Court since they give the Court an opportunity to formally overturn Stone. If they do, the Daily Citizen will keep you updated.

The case is Roake vs. Brumley.

Related articles and resources:

Appeals Court Favors Louisiana Ten Commandments Law for Now

Judge Temporarily Blocks Ten Commandments in Classrooms, Louisiana Will Appeal

Louisiana’s Ten Commandments Bill is Good for Kids, Communities, and the Nation

Photo from Getty Images.

Education Department Celebrates National School Choice Week

It’s National School Choice Week, and the U.S. Department of Education is celebrating remarkable steps taken last year to give parents more choice over their child’s education.

Running from Jan. 25-31, National School Choice Week celebrates the millions of parents who have chosen alternative education options for their children, and raises awareness about charter schools, private schools, homeschooling and other education opportunities available for families.

“During National School Choice Week, we celebrate how school choice has changed the lives of millions of students by empowering parents and families to choose a school or program that best meets their child’s needs,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in a statement.

The secretary released a special message to celebrate:

According to a January 2026 poll by the National School Choice Awareness Foundation, more than 46 million U.S. parents (75%) considered finding a new school for at least one of their children last year – a five-year high, and up from 60% in 2024. Twenty-one percent of parents (13.3 million) ultimately enrolled their child in a new learning environment.

The survey found most parents who enrolled their child in a new school were motivated by practical factors including entering school for the first time (20%), moving between school levels (26%) or families relocating to a new community (16%).

However, the most common reason parents gave was dissatisfaction with their child’s previous school (32%).

Parents said that when selecting a new school, their top priorities are a safe, supportive environment (61%), a positive social environment (47%) and a particular educational approach – like STEM, arts or faith-based education (39%).

Secretary McMahon highlighted the importance of school choice for parents:

The Trump Administration has worked to invest a record $500 million for charter school expansion, support the first-ever federal tax credit for education scholarships, and most importantly, return education to the states – so that decisions are made closest to the child.

The Education Freedom Tax Credit was created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald J. Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025.

Taxpayers can receive a tax credit of up to $1,700 for contributions made to a Scholarship Granting Organization, which then uses the funds to help children attend a school of their choice. States must opt-in to become a “covered state.”

Secretary McMahon shared a map of 23 states that have opted to participate in the tax credit program, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

On January 28, Florida became the 24th state to opt in to the tax credit.

“Florida families have access to the nation’s top ranked and largest school choice program. About 1.4 million students are enrolled in school choice options in Florida – more than most other states’ entire K-12 school population,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “The new federal school choice program will allow Florida families to supplement their existing scholarships.”

 Colorado Gov. Jared Polis also plans to allow his state to participate in the program.

“[The tax credit] supports donors to give more money to our schools,” Polis told the Colorado Sun. “I mean, I would be crazy not to [participate].”

On Jan. 28, President Trump issued a proclamation celebrating school choice week.

“No student should ever be trapped in a failing school, and parents deserve more choices, not fewer,” the declaration states. “We are working to guarantee that every child — regardless of where they live — has access to a world-class education and a chance to achieve the American Dream.”

The Department of Education highlighted several further actions it took in 2025 to expand school choice:

  • Awarded $500 million to the Charter Schools Programs, the largest investment in the program ever.
  • Urged states to expand education choice by using up to 3% of their federal Title I allocation to support education choice initiatives.
  • Encouraged states to continue to maximize parent options for choosing the safest school setting for their children.
  • Provided guidance to states so that they can prioritize school improvement dollars to districts that will turn around underperforming schools and give students school choice options.
  • Approved the first-in-the-nation “Returning Education to the States” Waiver to Iowa – empowering states and local leaders to have more control over their federal dollars.
  • Released additional guidance on how states might provide equitable services for students enrolled in private schools in more efficient and effective ways to best meet private school students’ needs.

“Happy National School Choice Week,” Secretary McMahon said. “Here’s to giving parents more power, educators more flexibility, and students more freedom to be successful in 2026!”

For more information on school choice, check out our available articles and resources below.

Related articles and resources:

Putting Children First in Education

School Choice for Parents

Schooling Options

Public Charter Schools

Is Homeschooling The Best For Me And My Kids?

Home Schooling: Giving Your Child a Strong Foundation

7 Things Every Homeschooling Rookie Should Know

Faith Development and Homeschooling

Education Department Launches ‘Presidential 1776 Award’ to Promote Civics Education

3 Reasons to Pay Attention to Your Child’s School

‘Equipping Parents For Back-To-School’ – Updated Resource Empowers Parents

Photo from Getty Images.

Ed Dept. Finds San José State Violated Title IX With Male Athlete in Women’s Volleyball

In a win for women’s athletics, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) found that San José State University discriminated against women by allowing a male to participate in women’s volleyball and use female-only facilities.

The OCR announced it is giving SJSU a Proposed Resolution Agreement “to voluntarily resolve its Title IX violations.” Among other requests, the agreement asks the school to publicly acknowledge there are two unchangeable sexes and apologize to female athletes.

Blaire Fleming, a male athlete who identifies as “transgender,” played on SJSU’s women’s volleyball team from 2022-2024, redshirting during his last year.

Trent Kerston, head coach at that time, recruited Fleming and gave him an athletic scholarship and spot on the team – both of which should have gone to a woman – but hid Fleming’s natal sex from his teammates.

Teammates and women from opposing teams suspected that Fleming was male, due to the strength of his hits and height of his jumps. But the team only found out the truth in April 2024, when Reduxx, a feminist news and opinion outlet, published an article titled “EXCLUSIVE: Biological Male Quietly Joined Women’s NCAA Division I Volleyball At San Jose State University.”

In its announcement, the OCR stated that San José State violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education programs receiving federal financial assistance.

The OCR found that SJSU “actively recruited and allowed a male to compete on the women’s indoor and beach volleyball teams and reportedly instructed members of the coaching staff not to tell the female players that the athlete was a male.”

The office noted the resulting loss of privacy for Fleming’s teammates:

As a result, female athletes on the team shared women’s locker rooms and hotel rooms with the male student while being unaware that he is a member of the opposite sex.

OCR added:

In addition to privacy concerns, the presence of this male athlete presented a safety concern for female athletes and provided SJSU’s volleyball team with an unfair physical advantage over opposing teams.
On multiple occasions, the male athlete spiked the ball so forcefully that it knocked females on the opposing team to the ground. During one season, seven all-women’s teams from other universities forfeited their competitions, accepting a loss rather than competing against a male.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon explained the damage on X:

San José State University caused significant harm to female athletes by allowing a male to compete on the women’s volleyball team – and when female athletes spoke out, SJSU retaliated.

The OCR’s Resolution Agreement requires SJSU to:

  • Issue a public statement to the SJSU community that SJSU will adopt biology-based definitions of the words “male” and “female” and acknowledge that the sex of a human – male or female – is unchangeable.
  • Specify that SJSU will follow Title IX by separating sports and intimate facilities based on biological sex.
  • State that SJSU will not delegate its obligation to comply with Title IX to any external association or entity and will not contract with any entity that discriminates on the basis of sex.
  • Restore to individual female athletes all individual athletic records and titles misappropriated by male athletes competing in women’s categories, and issue a personalized letter of apology on behalf of SJSU to each female athlete for allowing her participation in athletics to be marred by sex discrimination.
  • Send a personalized apology to every woman who played in SJSU’s women’s indoor volleyball (2022–2024), 2023 beach volleyball, and to any woman on a team that forfeited rather than compete against SJSU while a male student was on the roster – expressing sincere regret for placing female athletes in that position. 

SJSU, the Mountain West Conference and the NCAA are also facing lawsuits from Fleming’s teammates, women from opposing teams and a former assistant coach who faced retaliation from the school for filing a Title IX complaint.

But the university remains between a rock and a hard place. While the federal government cracks down on males in women’s sports and private spaces, the California attorney general is suing to stop those efforts.

In addition, California law prohibits “discrimination on the basis of … gender, gender identity, [and] gender expression.” So SJSU may run afoul of state law for acceding to the U.S. Department of Education demands.

The Daily Citizen will continue to keep you informed about this and other battles to protect girls and women’s sports, privacy and safety.

Related articles and resources:

Athletes Rally at Supreme Court to Keep Boys Out of Girls Sports

Department of Justice Launches Title IX Task Force to Protect Women’s Sports  

Four Women’s Volleyball Teams Forfeit — Won’t Play Team with a Man

NCAA and San Jose State ‘Transgender’ Volley Player Usurp Women’s Rights

NCAA Ban on Men in Women’s Sports ‘Toothless,’ Say Advocates, Gaines

Riley Gaines and 15 Other Female Athletes Sue NCAA Over ‘Transgender Policy’

San Jose Coach Suspended for Filing Discrimination Complaint Against Transgender Player

SJSU Hired Same Law Firm to Simultaneously Defend and Investigate Male Athlete on Women’s Team

Top 5 Moments From Supreme Court Arguments Over Girls Sports

Photo from Getty Images.