SCOTUS

Three Important Cases for Parental Rights, Supreme Court Rulings Expected Soon

With about one month left in the United States Supreme Court’s term, three critically important cases for parents still await a ruling. The three cases involve protecting children from pornography, permitting an opt-out from LGBT materials in classrooms and a ban on “transgender” mutilation of minors. Here’s what you need to know.

Opting Out of LGBT Classroom Material

In Mahmoud v. Taylor,  a group of Muslim, Jewish and Christian parents in Maryland are asking to opt their children out of public school mandated LGBT materials. The parents argue that the curriculum is in conflict with their religious teachings on gender and sexuality, and therefore, without an opt-out provision, it infringes on their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.

The question presented to the Court is whether the public schools violate the religious freedom of parents by requiring LGBT materials in the curriculum without providing an opt-out.

Both lower courts ruled against the parents holding that exposure to differing viewpoints in public education is not a violation of religious freedom.

As reported by the Daily Citizen, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case in April and appeared to be leaning towards requiring opt-outs which would set precedent for broader religious exemptions and expand parental rights in public schools. 

You can read the court transcript here.  

Banning Transgender Mutilation of Minors

United States v. Skrmetti, involves a  Tennessee law protecting minors from experimental, damaging trans medical interventions like opposite-sex hormones and surgery.

The ACLU and LGBT activist groups filed a lawsuit against the law claiming it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution because it discriminates on the basis of sex.

The state of Tennessee contended that it was trying to protect children from transgender experimentation on kids.

After an initial injunction, the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the state law.

Oral arguments were held in December, and at the time, court watchers predicted oral arguments suggested the Court “appeared ready to uphold” the ban.

You can read the oral arguments transcript here.  

Prohibiting Access of Minors to Pornography

Finally, in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton a Texas state law requiring pornographic websites to use an age-verification system to protect kids from accessing porn is being challenged.

The porn industry filed a lawsuit against the state arguing the added requirements violate the First Amendment rights of adults by creating undue burdens on lawful adult speech and infringing on the privacy of users.

The state argued that it was trying to protect minors from harmful, explicit material and could do so in a way that still protects the privacy of adult users.

The lower courts issued contrasting rulings in this case. The district court ruled against the state law and granted a preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed ruling – upholding the age verification requirement but struck down a health warning provision as compelled speech.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 15 and appeared divided on the constitutional question.

You can read the court transcript here.  

Expected Rulings

The Court is slated to meet through the end of June and could possibly go into July. The next date on which the Court will release opinions is this Thursday, June 5. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court releases it’s more controversial opinions at the end of the term, so it’s likely we won’t get an opinion on these three cases until the end of the month.

Daily Citizen will keep you informed as the Supreme Court issues rulings in these cases.

Image from Getty.

Supreme Court Tie on Charter School Hurts Oklahoma Students

On Thursday, an equally divided United States Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond – a case that would have allowed the state of Oklahoma to use government funds to run a faith-based school.

A “per curiam opinion” is a decision issued “by the court” and doesn’t identify how specific judges ruled in the particular case.

Given the current makeup of the High Court, it’s likely that Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted in favor of allowing the state-sponsored charter school and Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson voted against it.

Justice Barrett recused herself from the case. While she didn’t offer an explanation at the time, it’s assumed she did so because of her close friendship with Nicole Stelle Garnett, a former fellow professor at Notre Dame Law School and a legal advisor for St. Isidore.

Unfortunately, the 4-4 split means the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision blocking the school will stand. However, given the tie, it doesn’t set any national precedent, meaning it remains an open question whether government dollars can be used to help fund faith-based schools.

First Liberty Institute’s Executive Counsel Hiram Sasser, who represented the Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters, the State Board of Education, and the State Department of Education in the case, expressed frustration after the ruling.

“We are disappointed, but the result of this 4-4 decision with no opinion is that the fight against religious bigotry will continue in Oklahoma and across the country,” said Sasser. “We will not stop until we can bring an end to religious discrimination in education.”

Oklahoma’s Ryan Walters agreed.

“Allowing the exclusion of religious schools from our charter school program in the name of 19th century religious bigotry is wrong,” said Superintendent Walters. “As state superintendent, I will always stand with parents and families in opposition to religious discrimination and fight until all children in Oklahoma are free to choose the school that serves them best, religious or otherwise.”  

Jim Campbell, who serves as Chief Legal Counsel for our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom, and who represented the Oklahoma Charter School Board, also weighed in.

“Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer … The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear that when the government creates programs and invites groups to participate, it can’t single out religious groups for exclusion, and we will continue our work to protect this vital freedom for parents and students.”

At a time when headlines across the country regularly herald the violence, bad behavior and poor educational outcomes in so many public schools, it’s a tragedy that a divided Supreme Court has either delayed or derailed altogether a heartfelt dose of help to Oklahoma families.

“Isidore of Seville,” who was born in 560 AD, was known as “The Schoolmaster of the Middle Ages.” A prolific writer, he penned numerous books and encyclopedias, organized and helped start numerous seminaries, and believed well educated followers of Christ were also better citizens of the world.

“All spiritual growth comes from reading and reflection,” he once wrote. “By reading we learn what we did not know; by reflection we retain what we have learned. The conscientious reader will be more concerned to carry out what he has read than merely to acquire knowledge of it. In reading we aim at knowing, but we must put into practice what we have learned in our course of study.”

Organizers behind St. Isidore have said from the beginning that their goal has been to serve “God and families by spiritually and academically preparing students, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, for lives of intellectual excellence, holiness, and service to others with the ultimate goal of eternal salvation by bringing quality, Catholic education to all parts of Oklahoma.”

Let’s continue to pray that men and women of faith won’t be disheartened by this latest ruling and continue to pursue the constitutionality of faith-based publicly funded charter schools.

Image from Shutterstock.

Supreme Court Sympathetic to Opt-Outs for LGBT Curriculum

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court appeared sympathetic to a group of religious Maryland parents asking to opt their children out of a mandated LGBT curricula at school.

The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor, and the plaintiffs are parents from diverse religious backgrounds in Montgomery County, Maryland, including Muslim, Catholic, Ukrainian Orthodox and Jewish families.

The families contend the school district’s policy, which exposes the students to LGBT curriculum without an opt-out provision, infringes on their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.

The parents maintain that the curriculum conflicts with their religious teachings on gender and sexuality and are asking the Court to require the school district offer an opt-out.

Background

In 2022, Mongomery County Public Schools in Maryland approved the use of several LGBT children’s books in preschool through 12th grade language arts curricula.

At first, parents were notified and given the option to opt their children out of that material. However, in 2023, the school district revised its policies, eliminating the opt-out option. due to “administrative challenges.”

In response, a multi-faith parent group sued the school board and the superintendent, arguing their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was being infringed.

The parent group lost in both lower courts, which held that exposure to differing viewpoints in public education does not constitute a violation of religious freedom.

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider the case and consider the following question: “Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?”

Supreme Court Oral Argument

Oral arguments were heard on April 22, 2025. The conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the parents’ position, suggesting the lack of an opt-out provision could infringe on their religious freedom.

Justice Alito questioned whether exposure to storybook narratives burdens religious exercise by sending a clear moral message that some religious parents might find objectionable.

Justice Gorsuch was more narrowly focused on whether the school board’s actions demonstrated discrimination towards religious beliefs. He questioned if the lack of an opt-out provision indicated hostility towards religious parents.

Justice Kavanaugh was concerned about the importance of accommodating religious beliefs in education. He mentioned that the goal of the Court’s religious precedents is to look for a win/win situation where religious beliefs are respected and accommodated while the school district pursues its goals.

Justice Thomas questioned whether the books were merely in the room or being used as a teaching tool that would burden religious exercise by compelling student participation.

Justice Barrett’s questions focused on whether the material constitutes exposure or coercion, and Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the importance of neutrality and fairness, questioning whether the policy change shows a lack of respect for religious diversity.

The more liberal justices expressed concern that granting opt-outs might lead to widespread exemptions from the curriculum and undermine the district’s education efforts.

Implications

A ruling in favor of parents could set precedent for broader religious exemptions and expand parental rights in public schools. It could also establish precedent preventing districts from incorporating LGBT materials into subjects like ELA, which don’t usually include opt-out provisions

Alternatively, if a parent’s right to opt their children out of LGBT material is not required by the Court for language arts classes, it’s possible LGBT activists will expand their scope and influence through curricula in that subject nationwide.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in this case by July 2025.

Image from Getty.

Planned Parenthood’s Cash Flow is on Trial

Last week, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. At issue is whether individual states can deny Medicaid funds to abortion industry organizations like Planned Parenthood. According to the Alliance Defending Freedom, whose lawyers are arguing the case, this started back in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster directed that no Medicaid money could go to groups that perform abortions. The governor reasoned, “The payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life.” 

Using government cash for abortion not only offends the moral sensibilities of millions of Americans but, for 45 years now, the Hyde Amendment has “prohibit[ed] covered funds to be expended for any abortion or to provide health benefits coverage that includes abortion.” With his directive, McMaster was eliminating an end run around the clear intent of this law. As one supporter put it, “States should be free to use taxpayer dollars in accordance with their own state laws and priorities. No citizen should be forced to fund facilities that perform life-ending and medically fraught procedures like abortion.” 

Despite the overarching moral concerns at the heart of this case, the oral arguments centered on particular words and concerns. Specifically, because existing law specifies that Medicaid can go to “any qualified provider” the patient chooses, in question is whether South Carolina is required to allow funds to go to Planned Parenthood as a medical provider. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett, from either side of the ideological aisle, expressed hesitation about South Carolina’s claims, to different degrees, that the law does not contain “rights-creating” language. In reply, ADF attorney John Bursch pointed out that “the fact that the 12 of us can have such a robust conversation about whether this statute is mandatory or not, whether it’s rights-creating or not, demonstrates that the rights-creating language is ambiguous, not clear and explicit.” 

Given the over 140 federally approved pregnancy support centers in South Carolina, it’s difficult to conclude that denying funds to Planned Parenthood will harm the women in the state. That claim rests on Planned Parenthood’s dubious claim that killing children is healthcare. It was on that basis that the ADF took the state to court in the first place. After numerous rulings and appeals, the Supreme Court will now, in a sense, decide whether an organization like Planned Parenthood, whose primary business is death and so-called gender care, counts as a qualified medical practice. 

According to the interim president of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, they are. Thus, as she put it, “Government officials should never block people from getting health care or be able to decide which doctor you can or cannot see. We will never stop fighting for our patients and their right to choose their trusted health care provider.” 

But Planned Parenthood’s “healthcare” is primarily and overwhelmingly abortion. Thus, their business interests are about unrestrained access to abortion. As ADF put it: 

Planned Parenthood performed 392,715 abortions between Oct. 1, 2021, and Sept. 30, 2022, representing a 5 percent increase from the previous year and an increase of over 70 percent in just two decades. At the same time, Planned Parenthood’s legitimate medical services have all decreased in recent years. From 2022 to 2023, preventative care visits fell by 31 percent. 

And, they don’t need the money. As ADF president Kristen Waggoner wrote: 

Planned Parenthood received $3.2 billion in direct public funding. That’s on top of the hundreds of millions more it receives from private donors. And since the year Roe v. Wade was reversed, it’s had a fundraising boom, amassing over $2.5 billion in net assets. 

Even though this court has been friendly to the cause of life, technicalities matter greatly. Please pray for these judges looking at the legal side of this national evil. Just as the journey was long for abolitionists in the nineteenth century, so it is for those today who are committed to seeing abortion not merely made illegal but unthinkable.

U.S. Supreme Court Divided on Defunding Planned Parenthood

On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court appeared divided during oral argument over South Carolina’s decision to defund Planned Parenthood.

Ultimately, it comes down to if the people of South Carolina can determine they don’t want to fund activities that result in the killing of a human life.

Legally, the Court is asked to consider the statutory intent behind the Medicaid Act to determine, whether South Carolina can exclude Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid program.

Based on oral argument, it’s not clear where a majority of the Court stands at present.

Background

The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, originated in 2018 when the South Carolina governor issued an executive order prohibiting abortion clinics from participating in the state’s Medicaid program.

Planned Parenthood immediately sued the state, and the case has been making its way through the court system.

In December 2024, with federal circuit courts split on how to interpret the underlying federal law, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Oral Argument

During oral argument on Wednesday, the justices spent a majority of the time discussing whether Congress intended to confer a statutory “right” to choose “any qualified provider,” under the Medicaid Act. This would include a mechanism for individuals to sue the state when their choice of doctor is rejected.

As expected, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson argued the language in the Medicaid Act confers a right to individuals; therefore, the state cannot exclude Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program.

Counsel for South Carolina responded to their comments, contending that if Congress wanted to use clear rights language it could have. Unfortunately, Congress didn’t when it drafted the law.

The remaining six conservative justices all raised questions related to rights creating language, but didn’t seem to be advancing a united judicial theory.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch expressed concern in providing clarity to the lower courts regarding rights creating language.

Justice Clarence Thomas asked questions relating to the fact that the statute is not clear when it comes to rights-creating language.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed to think past court precedent was enough guidance for the lower courts.

Pro-Life Allies

Alliance Defending Freedom partnered with South Carolina to defend the state’s position and held a rally with pro-life allies on the Supreme Court steps before and after oral argument.

South Carolina received an impressive amount of support in the form of friend-of-the-court briefs from the federal government, 18 states, Members of Congress, doctors in South Carolina and pro-life organizations.

Impact

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could be far reaching. A ruling in favor of South Carolina could empower other states to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, potentially cutting a major funding stream to the abortion provider.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case by June of this year.

The Daily Citizen will keep you updated on this developing story.

Image from Getty.