The U.S. Supreme Court is taking up huge cases. This one came out of nowhere.
Because the U.S. Supreme Court was hit with a filing that even President Trump was surprised by.
Congressional Republicans Rally Behind Parents’ Rights in Supreme Court Case
On Tuesday morning, March 11, a group of 66 congressional Republicans will submit an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, advocating for parents’ constitutional authority to shield their children from classroom materials centered on Left-wing gender ideology and s*xuality. This filing comes as part of a legal battle waged by parents against a Maryland school district policy that mandates participation in such educational content for students ranging from pre-kindergarten through middle school, leaving no room for parental dissent.
The lawmakers, spearheaded by Republican Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Republican Alabama Representative Robert Aderholt, head of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, assert that the Montgomery County school district’s approach infringes on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. According to details shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF), the brief contends that the policy dismisses parents’ objections to their children encountering specific gender and s*xuality teachings, thereby trampling on their religious freedom.
The Supreme Court decided in January to take up this case, which challenges the school district’s 2023 decision to eliminate a prior policy allowing parents to receive notice and opt their children out of lessons featuring gender ideology and s*xuality themes. The amicus brief emphasizes that the school board “lacks a compelling governmental justification to violate the parents’ First Amendment religious freedom rights,” as outlined in background information provided to the DCNF.
In their filing, the lawmakers pose critical questions: “[M]ay the state condition a child’s participation in public schooling on the child’s parents’ ceding to the government the right to indoctrinate the child on contested moral and religious issues — even when such teaching violates the parents’ moral and religious commitments?” They firmly answer, “The answer to both questions — as Congress has long recognized in its legislation — is no.” The brief goes on to note, “Indeed, federal law has consistently protected parental rights in the educational arena,” adding that the parents’ pursuit of religious accommodation aligns with this established congressional stance.
The controversy traces back to November 2022, when the Montgomery County school board introduced over 20 books into classrooms, some aimed at children as young as pre-kindergarten. These materials included narratives about gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-s*x playground romance, according to the parents’ petition. Initially, the district adhered to a religious accommodation policy, notifying parents and permitting them to excuse their children from these lessons. However, that practice changed, prompting outrage.
One book, Pride Puppy, designed for three- and four-year-olds, notably encouraged young readers to identify words like “drag queen,” “underwear,” and “leather” from a list, as previously reported by the DCNF. This addition of such titles fueled the concerns of a coalition of Christian and Muslim parents, who launched their lawsuit in May 2023 after the district revoked its notification and opt-out provisions. Both a district court judge and the Fourth Circuit of Appeals sided against the parents, setting the stage for the Supreme Court’s involvement.
Senator Cassidy, in a statement to the DCNF, declared, “Requiring children to be taught gender and s*xuality subject matter that violates their family’s religious beliefs is unconstitutional.” He stressed, “Parents have the right to know what their child is learning in school. I am proud to co-lead this amicus brief defending parents’ constitutional right to raise their child in the manner they choose.”
Representative Aderholt echoed this sentiment, telling the DCNF, “Parents have a fundamental right to guide their children’s education and upbringing, especially when it involves sensitive topics that intersect with their deeply held beliefs.” He added, “The government should never force children to be exposed to materials that contradict their family’s values without parental knowledge or consent. I stand with parents in their fight to ensure they have a say in what their children are taught in the classroom.”
The effort has garnered significant support within the Republican ranks, with 17 GOP senators and 46 House Republicans signing onto the brief. Among them is House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, lending considerable weight to the cause. As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh this matter, the filing signals a robust defense of parental rights against what these lawmakers view as an overreach by educational authorities.
Trump Administration Issues Executive Orders on S*x Recognition and DEI Programs
At the beginning of his second term, President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders that mark a significant shift in U.S. federal policy. These directives establish that the government will recognize only two s*xes—male and female—and terminate what the administration describes as “radical and wasteful” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs within federal agencies. The orders, detailed by senior White House officials in a phone call prior to Trump’s inauguration, fall under the administration’s overarching “restoring sanity” initiative.
The first of these orders focuses on defining s*x in federal policy and documentation. It mandates that the term “s*x” replace “gender” across government usage and instructs agencies like the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that identification documents—such as passports, visas, and Global Entry cards—list only male or female as options.
“Across the country, ideologues who deny the biological reality of s*x have increasingly used legal and other socially coercive means to permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-s*x spaces and activities designed for women, from women’s domestic abuse shelters to women’s workplace showers. This is wrong,” the order declares. It frames this policy as a defense of women’s rights, stating that it will “defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.”
The order further argues that acknowledging only two s*xes is essential to the integrity of American governance. “Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of s*x fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being,” it asserts. “The erasure of s*x in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system.” The document ties this stance to larger principles, adding, “Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.”
This move reverses a policy from the Biden administration, which in 2022 permitted U.S. citizens to select an “X” gender marker on passports as a gender-neutral option. Following Trump’s executive action, a State Department webpage that once provided guidance on updating passport gender markers became inaccessible, redirecting users to a generic U.S. passports page.
Beyond terminology and identification, the gender order imposes additional restrictions. It prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for gender-transition healthcare and requires that single-s*x facilities—such as prisons and r*pe shelters—be designated based on biological s*x rather than gender identity. The order also calls for federal agencies to eliminate any existing guidance that contradicts its directives. Specifically targeted for rescission are documents like the “White House Toolkit on Transgender Equality,” “Supporting Transgender Youth in School,” and “Confronting Anti-LGBTQI+ Harassment in Schools: A Resource for Students and Families.”
The second executive order addresses DEI programs, labeling them as inefficient and ideologically driven. While specifics of this order were not outlined in the initial announcement, White House officials emphasized that it aligns with the administration’s goal of streamlining federal operations and refocusing on what they consider practical priorities.
Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.
