parental rights

Victory: CA School District Agrees to Notify Parents Before Teaching Gender Ideology

A California school district agreed Monday to notify parents before teaching gender ideology in school “buddy programs” and allow them to opt their children out.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction against Encinitas Union School District in May, requiring it give parents at least three days to opt their children out of activities promoting gender ideology in school “buddy programs” — mandatory mentorship initiatives pairing older students up with younger ones.

On Monday, the district voluntarily dismissed its appeal of the injunction, effectively agreeing to abide by the order until the case against it concludes.

“This is a big win,” Carlos Encinas told the Daily Citizen. “We’ve had highs and lows, so right now, we’re just enjoying the moment.”

Carlos and his wife, Jenny, sued Encinitas Union School District in September 2024 for allegedly violating their parental rights and right to religious freedom. The district had repeatedly refused the couple’s request to opt their sons out of “buddy program” lessons promoting gender ideology, which conflicts with the family’s faith.

The district further violated their son’s right to free speech, the Encinas argue, by compelling him to promote gender ideology to a younger classmate.

The 11-year-old and his kindergarten buddy had been forced to listen to an audiobook about a little boy who discovers his shadow — his “innermost self”— is pink, not blue. The Encinas’ son, a devout Christian, was subsequently required to help the younger child identify the color shadow that “best represented him.”

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the Encinas on May 12. First Liberty Attorney Kayla Toney, the couple’s lawyer, says the judge agreed Encinitas Union School District likely violated their son’s right to free speech.

“The judge basically found that, under Supreme Court case law, schools cannot force students to speak messages that go against their beliefs or their conscience,” she told the Daily Citizen.

Toney also believes the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor this summerinfluenced the school district’s decision to drop its appeal.

“In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court found that school districts are required to provide advance notice and opt-outs to parents when the material [the district] is teaching substantially interferes with their religious beliefs,” she told the Daily Citizen.

“I think there’s no way [Encinitas Union School District] could have won under Mahmoud,” she continued, noting Supreme Court precedent applies regardless of state law. “I think they saw the writing on the wall and decided to withdraw their appeal in light of [that].”

The Encinas weathered significant persecution to stand up for their rights. Carlos and Jenny removed their boys from the public school system entirely after facing vitriol from teachers, parents and students.

But, through it all, Carlos says God has remained faithful.

“There’s a certain awareness [about parental rights issues] within our community now that I think is really beneficial,” he reflected.

“[The district] really isn’t transparent about how it trains its teachers and the way content is distributed in the classroom,” he continued. “We’ve had a lot of parents reach out to us personally and thank us for being a voice on this.”

Carlos also praised God for making a way for his sons to attend a private, Catholic school.

“[My kids] are in a great place,” he told the Daily Citizen. “They’re thriving — and we’ve got a new community [and support system] we’ve been introduced to.”

While Carlos is grateful for God’s provision, he and Toney know most parents do not have the choice to leave public school.

“[The Encinas] never should have had to withdraw from the public school district,” Toney emphasized. “The fact that the hostility rose to that level is really appalling, because most families don’t have other options.”

“It’s an extraordinary effort to move your kids out of public school,” Carlos added. “I’m just so thankful to God for opening those doors.”

Toney and the Encinas don’t know when the case will conclude — but Carlos says the timeline doesn’t matter. He and his family intend to see it through.

“We know God’s got this battle won for us — we just need to be trusting and faithful,” he told the Daily Citizen.

“It’s definitely taken a bit longer than we expected, and it may take a bit longer [still], but we’re in it for the long haul, however long it takes.”

Additional Articles and Resources

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

California Family Wins Early Legal Victory for Parental Rights, Religious Freedom

California Family Harassed After Trying to Opt-Out of Activities Teaching Gender Ideology

Common Spirit Denied Teen Body Medical Care After Parents Objected to Doctor’s Bizarre Questions

Three Ways the Media Supports Sexually Explicit, Inappropriate Books for Children

Liberal Father Seeks to Disprove Concerns Over Sexually Explicit Books in Schools, Becomes Convinced These Books Are Not for Children

Sexualizing Schoolchildren: Classroom and Library Books

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

In a decisive victory for people of faith, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of parental rights and religious freedom over mandated “LGBT” curriculum in public school classrooms.

The decision affirms schools can’t force children to participate in LGBT classroom material without offering parents the right to opt out based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

Background

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, involves a group of Maryland parents from diverse religious backgrounds asking to opt their children out of mandated LGBT curricula at school.

As reported by the Daily Citizen, the case originated in 2023 when the school district eliminated an opt-out provision for LGBT children’s books read in the classroom.

A multi-faith parent group sued the school district, claiming the policy infringed on their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

They requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the school district from requiring their children to read, listen to or discuss the storybooks while the case was being litigated on the merits of its constitutional claims. The parents lost in both lower courts.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April.

Opinion

The majority opinion was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

The Court ruled parents have the First Amendment free exercise right to opt their children out of LGBT classroom materials in public elementary schools.

The majority affirmed when schools force exposure to content conflicting with sincerely held religious beliefs, like marriage and gender identity, the schools substantially burden the rights of religious parents.

The Court applied strict scrutiny because it involves the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Here, the Court held the school district’s failure to allow religious opt-outs violated strict scrutiny because the school offered opt-outs in other contexts but refused to accommodate religious objections to LGBT material.

The majority reversed the lower court’s ruling and granted a preliminary injunction to the parents, which requires the district to provide notice before using LGBT curriculum and permits students to opt out of the instruction while the case continues to be litigated on its merits.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion emphasizing an important “implication of this decision for schools across the country.”

He wrote:

The Board may not insulate itself from First Amendment liability by “weav[ing]”religiously offensive material throughout its curriculum and thereby significantly increase the difficulty and complexity of remedying parents’ constitutional injuries.

He warned, “Insofar as schools or boards attempt to employ their curricula to interfere with religious exercise, courts should carefully police such ‘ingenious defiance of the Constitution.'”

Public schools have officially been put on notice by Justice Thomas.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.

Dissenting Justices argued this decision might undermine the role of public education in exposing students to differing perspectives. They suggested the administrative burden to opt students out would be too cumbersome and that this might lead to students being exempted from essential history or science concepts based on religious objections.

Impact

This case will have long-lasting implications not just in Maryland but in public schools across the nation.

Religious freedom and parental rights have been strengthened in every state. This ruling recognizes parents have a First Amendment right to protect their children from instruction contradicting their sincerely held religious beliefs. Based on this case precedent, schools will now be required to provide notice and opt-outs for LGBT materials, especially for young children.

Public school districts and boards nationwide must now reconsider their approach to LGBT content and change their policies or face lawsuits from parents ready to protect their children and defend their religious freedom.

Focus on the Family applauds the Court’s decision. This case draws a clear line in the sand — public education must respect parental rights and the religious convictions of Christians and all people of faith.  

Focus on the Family Urges Congressional Leaders to Respect Parental Rights

This June, Focus on the Family is urging congressional leaders to respect parental rights by passing federal legislation that would protect those rights for parents nationwide.

Promise to America’s Parents Coalition led the effort and brought together over 50 diverse organizations on behalf of millions of American parents who feel increasingly sidelined in decisions impacting their children.

The letter coincided with the 100th anniversary of the landmark United States Supreme Court decision Pierce v. Society of Sisters ruling, which recognized “the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”

The letter called on congressional leaders to protect families and parental rights by passing the Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act, S. 204 and H.R. 650.

Parental rights are deeply rooted in our cultural traditions and constitutional law. Still, recently, some courts have failed to apply the highest standard of review, strict scrutiny, when considering whether a government’s actions have infringed on parental rights.

Strict scrutiny is reserved for fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. It requires that the government’s action must serve a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary harm. When courts neglect to use that standard of review, they are downgrading parental rights.

The Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act, S. 204 and H.R. 650, would require any federal government action that burdens parental rights must be reviewed using the strict scrutiny legal standard.

In addition, the proposed federal law recognizes that parents have the constitutional right to make decisions about their children’s education, healthcare, and moral upbringing.

It promotes accountability, prevents government overreach into parental authority, protects parental rights to choose healthcare and education options that are best for their child, and requires transparency by guaranteeing parents have access to their child’s medical and school records.

Unfortunately, in recent years, federal law and policies have been weaponized against parents at “an alarming rate and to a greater degree.” The letter cites several actions taken by agencies that undermine parental rights, including:

  • The Department of Defense’s education arm intentionally withholds information from parents about their child’s medical records.
  • The Department of Agriculture’s education arm encourages leaders to ignore parental concerns and address students according to their preferred gender identity.
  • The Department of Health and Human Services is funding a national suicide hotline that connects kids to trans activist organizations without parental knowledge or consent.
  • Medicaid funding goes to school health centers that refer students for mental health and reproductive services, including the abortion pill “Plan B” for kids as young as 12 years old without parental consent.

At Focus on the Family, we know parents have the God-given, fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing, education, healthcare decisions, and religious training.  Children also have the right to be loved and guided by their parents.

Our nation needs strong families because they are the building blocks of thriving communities and, ultimately, a flourishing country.

Related Articles and Resources

Exclusive Interview: Colorado Parents Expose ‘Gender Cult’ at Public School in New Documentary

Florida AG Launches Office of Parental Rights, Defending Parents’ ‘God-Given Right’

Minnesota Mom on the Frontlines for Parental Rights and Protecting Children

Sex Educators Say ‘Early Grades May Be the Best Time’ to Introduce Children to LGBT Issues

Three Important Cases for Parental Rights, Supreme Court Rulings Expected SoonUSDA Says, ‘No School Lunch for You!’ – Unless You Embrace LGBT Ideology

In Victory for Parental Rights, Iowa Law Permits Students to Receive Religious Instruction

A recently enacted Iowa law now allows public school students to receive optional religious education during the school day, despite opposition from an atheist group.

Effective July 1, the bill authorizes Iowa students to receive up to five hours of “private religious instruction” per school week.  

The law’s stipulations include:

  • Religious instruction must be provided by a private organization and may not be conducted on school property.
  • Religious organizations must keep attendance records and assume liability for their students.
  • School funds may not be used to support religious programs.
  • Parents or guardians must notify the school that their child will be attending a religious program.
  • Parents or guardians must provide transportation to and from students’ religious classes.
  • Students may be excused for religious instruction up to five hours per week.
  • Students must agree to make up any school work they may miss during their absence.

Additionally, the law permits parents to take action against any school that does not allow students to attend religious instruction classes.

On Friday, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed the bill (House File 870) into law. The bill previously earned a vote of 96-2 in the Iowa House of Representatives, followed by a unanimous vote of 47-0 in the Iowa Senate. 

These majority votes prevailed despite previous pushback from the anti-religion group, Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).

When Ohio passed a similar law in 2023, FFRF sent letters to Ohio’s school districts expressing their disapproval: “Public school districts are not legally required to authorize released time bible study classes.”

FFRF specifically targeted LifeWise Academy, a program that seeks to provide “Bible-based character education to public school students”:

LifeWise’s goal is clear: they seek to indoctrinate and convert public school students to evangelical Christianity by convincing public school districts to partner with them in bringing LifeWise released time bible classes to public school communities.

Public school students have the First Amendment right to be free from religious indoctrination in their schools.

However, the Ohio and Iowa laws are consistent with the 1952 Supreme Court decision in the case of Zorach v. Clauson, which permitted New York City students to receive religious education during school hours:

No one is forced to go to the religious classroom, and no religious exercise or instruction is brought to the classrooms of the public schools.

A student need not take religious instruction. He is left to his own desires as to the manner or time of his religious devotions, if any.

Similar laws authorizing optional religious education have been passed in other states, including Oklahoma and Indiana.

In a recent statement, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Greg Chafuen said:

Parents have the right and responsibility to guide the upbringing and education of their children.

The government should not stop families from raising their children in their family’s faith.

As the U.S. Supreme Court explained, respecting parents’ decisions for their child to participate in released time programs “follows the best of our traditions.”

Such legislation does not inhibit students’ education, but rather ensures their First Amendment right to freedom of religion – a constitutional right that should never be infringed upon.

Related Articles and Resources

Bring Your Bible Day

Indiana Governor Signs Bill Protecting Students’ ‘Release Time’ for Religious Instruction

Christianity Invented Childhood. It’s Time We Defend it Again

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

California Family Wins Early Legal Victory for Parental Rights, Religious Freedom

Tennessee Governor Signs Bill Protecting Free Speech in Schools

Religious Liberty is the Preserver to Keep America Afloat

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.