SCOTUS

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.

Will Supreme Court Allow Nation’s First Religious Charter School?

Just in time for Catholic Schools Week, the United States Supreme Court has announced plans to review the constitutionality of a new publicly funded Catholic charter school in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma City’s “Saint Isidore of Seville” was supposed to open back in 2023, but a lawsuit has stalled its anticipated opening.

Isidore of Seville, who died in 686 A.D., has been referred to as “the last scholar of the ancient world.” In fact, back in 1997, Pope John Paull II designated Isidore as the patron saint of the internet, an acknowledgement of his significant contributions to communicating vast amounts of knowledge.

But supporters of what would be the nation’s first Christian charter school have faced resistance, including push back from inside the otherwise conservative Oklahoma government.

Gentner Drummond, the Sooner State’s attorney general, has opposed the formation of the institution, suggesting it violates the state constitution.

“The approval of any publicly funded religious school is contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interest of taxpayers,” Drummond has warned. 

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has strongly disagreed, suggesting that to prohibit the publicly funded charter school sends a chilling and discriminatory message.

“I’m glad the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing the St. Isidore case,” he wrote last week.

“This stands to be one of the most significant religious and education freedom decisions in our lifetime. I believe our nation’s highest court will agree that denying St. Isidore’s charter based solely on its religious affiliation is flat-out unconstitutional. We’ve seen ugly religious intolerance from opponents of the education freedom movement, but I look forward to seeing our religious liberties protected both in Oklahoma and across the country.”

In crafting the school’s mission statement, organizers made clear that being a Catholic isn’t a prerequisite for admission.

Here’s St. Isidore’s founding aim:

Guided by our Catholic faith, [St. Isidore] serves 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. 

Focus on the Family has historically championed the belief that mothers and fathers should be allowed to spend their educational tax dollars as they so wish. Whether at a faith-based school or some other private institution, no parent should be forced to fund the increasingly woke propaganda that’s masquerading these days as age-appropriate public-school curriculum.

We also believe religious organizations should be given the same rights and privileges as any other secular group.

Oklahoma’s Supreme Court voted 7-1 last year to block the school’s opening, agreeing in large part with AG Drummond’s legal reasoning.

Justice Dana Kuehn offered the lone dissent.

“Contracting with a private entity that has religious affiliations, by itself, does not establish a state religion, nor does it favor one religion over another,” Kuehn wrote.

Alliance Defending Freedom’s Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell cheered the High Court’s decision to accept the case.

“Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer,” Campbell wrote. “There’s great irony in state officials who claim to be in favor of religious liberty discriminating against St. Isidore because of its Catholic beliefs.”

He added, “The U.S. Constitution protects St. Isidore’s freedom to operate according to its faith … We’re pleased the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this case, which is of the utmost import to families and children in Oklahoma and throughout the country.”

Back in 2022, the High Court ruled that Maine’s attempt to exclude religious schools from its tuition-assistance program violated the First Amendment. 

Given the Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments this winter or spring, we can expect a decision by summer.

Image from Shutterstock.

Key Takeaways from Supreme Court Case on ‘Transgender’ Interventions

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a historic case on December 4 about a Tennessee law protecting minors from experimental and damaging “transgender” medical interventions – drugs, hormones and surgery.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and ACLU Staff Attorney Chase Strangio, a woman who identifies as a man, argued that the law, Senate Bill 1, should be struck down. Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice argued in favor of protecting children.

Here’s a brief synopsis of the case, followed by some reactions from conservatives about the oral arguments.

Tennessee’s measure prohibits medical procedures “enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.” The interventions would still be available to a child with a real medical issue such as precocious puberty, when sexual development begins at a very young age.

The case gained national attention, as the outcome could affect 23 states that have shielded children from these destructive procedures, along with 17 lawsuits fighting these protections. The day before the case was presented, people camped outside the Supreme Court to get seats. Groups supporting and opposing the law held separate rallies outside the court before oral arguments took place.

The ACLU and other LGBT activist groups filed a lawsuit against SB 1 on behalf of minors with sexual identity confusion and their parents. The Biden administration’s Department of Justice also sued to block the law, and the court combined the suits into one case.

The main question before the Court was whether or not the law is constitutional. Proponents of transgender medical interventions arguing that SB 1 discriminated on the basis of sex, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Justices also asked questions about the effectiveness of transgender medical procedures, whether transgenderism is immutable, and whether the state has an interest in helping children “appreciate their sex.”

Pro-child activist Robby Starbuck, producer of the documentary The War on Children, noted that Justice Alito “dismantled the government’s argument that Tennessee’s ban on trans drugs and procedures for kids is sex based discrimination via immutable characteristics.” Strangio agreed that some with sexual identity confusion do revert to their birth sex.

James Lynch commented in National Review on Justice Samuel Alito’s questioning of Prelogar’s petition to the court where she said there was “overwhelming evidence” that these medical interventions help children. He wrote that Alito “tore into” the solicitor general for this false statement, adding that the justice read evidence to the contrary:

Alito cited extensive research from European countries showing otherwise, including a study from a Swedish medical board that concluded the risks of transgender treatments likely outweigh purported benefits. Alito also referred to the United Kingdom’s “Cass Review,” which found little evidence to further the viewpoint that the benefits of transgender treatment are greater than the risks.

Similarly, pro-child activist Matt Walsh noted that Alito pointed to “The Cass Review,” a thorough examination of the available literature on these harmful procedures, noting they “don’t actually prevent suicide.”

Transgender-identified activists often claim that all of us – and parents, especially – must affirm children in their sexual identity confusion – or they will die. But Strangio admitted in the exchange, “Completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare.”

Several commentators focused on Justice Sonja Sotomayor’s cavalier dismissal of the extreme risks and harms to children’s bodies and minds from experimental, dangerous drugs, hormones and surgeries. Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Article III Project, noted that she trivialized the damage by saying, “Well, aspirin has side effects, too.”

The Manhattan Institute’s Leor Sapir, a staunch defender of children’s health, wrote that Sotomayor’s speaking about “girls who just ‘don’t want their breasts,’” demonstrates how gender ideology has “has normalized the unthinkable and seeped into every crack of our institutions.”

Tyler O’Neil, writing at The Daily Signal, noted several falsehoods in Prelogar’s statements, including the lie that puberty blockers are reversible, saying they are “just pressing pause on someone’s endogenous puberty to give them more time to understand their identity.”

In fact, as the Daily Citizen reported, the United Kingdom National Health Service retracted its statement that puberty blockers are “fully reversible” four years ago, with the group stating:

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. … It is not known what the psychological effects may be. It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

Children placed on puberty blockers can never go back in time and replace the lost years when they should have been growing and maturing through the natural process of puberty. The Manhattan Institute reports, “Puberty blockers may have serious side-effects, including lower IQ, osteoporosis, early and aggressive menopause, infertility, and depression.”

Though Prelogar said children can give informed consent about the possibility of losing their fertility with these powerful drugs, O’Neil pointed out that even transgender activists doubt whether minors have the emotional and cognitive ability to assess these risks.

Finally, The Heritage Foundation’s Roger Severino noted that Justice Clarence Thomas’ questioning of Strangio destroyed the convoluted argument that not allowing girls to access opposite-sex hormones, in order to “transition,” constituted sex discrimination.

Tennessee does not allow boys who want testosterone to build muscle size and strength. But if the ACLU and DOJ prevail, as Thomas pointed out, only girls would be allowed to take testosterone to develop male sex characteristics – “which is … sex discrimination!” Severino exclaimed.

It’s clear that giving children puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries for the purpose of identifying as the opposite sex is dangerous experimentation. The state of Tennessee wants to help children live in reality and appreciate their birth sex – a much more compassionate approach.

When parents and medical professionals irreversibly damage children with these procedures, the state is right to step in and stop them.

We’re praying common sense and compassion rule the day at the Supreme Court as the justices make their decision.

The case is United States v. Skrmetti. Here’s a transcript of oral arguments.

Image credit: Getty.