SCOTUS likely to side with parents who object to LGBT propaganda in elementary classrooms



The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the case Mahmoud v. Taylor, concerning Maryland parents' right to shield their children from LGBT propaganda in elementary school classrooms.

Unlike liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the high court's conservative-leaning justices appeared receptive to the argument that Montgomery County Public Schools, the state's largest school district, violated the Constitution when it found a way around Maryland law to prevent parents from opting their children out of mandatory readings of LGBT propaganda.

The court's ruling in the case is expected by June.

Background

MCPS approved over 20 works of LGBT propaganda for inclusion as instructional materials in its English language arts curriculum in late 2022.

There was no mistaking the propagandistic nature of these works, which included at the outset:

  • "Pride Puppy," a book approved for pre-K students that tasks 3- and 4-year-old students with searching for items they might find at a non-straight parade — including transvestite activists, underwear, leather, "intersex flag," and feathers;
  • activist and former chair of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation Board Jodie Patterson's "Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope," a work of propaganda that seeks to normalize child sex transitions that the district approved for K-5 students;
  • "My Rainbow," a story about a mother's efforts to groom her transvestic son;
  • "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," about a little girl's peripheral involvement in her uncle's gay "wedding"; and
  • "Intersection Allies: We Make Room for All," touted as "a smooth, gleeful entry into intersectional feminism."

The district was initially willing to let parents opt their children out of lessons incorporating the LGBT propaganda and to provide notice when such works were read, as required by state law. However, MCPS ultimately decided to deny parents the option in March 2023.

It appears the district figured it could get away with mandating the propaganda on account of a sleight of hand. State law requires opt-outs for sex education units of health classes. Since the books were instead introduced as part of the English curriculum, they are apparently not subject to the opt-out provision.

'They're not asking you to change that at all.'

Christian and Muslim parents who wanted the option not to have their kids subjected to content that stood in direct conflict with their religious beliefs took the district to court on May 24, 2023. Represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, they argued that the district's policy violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

After lesser courts refused to order MCPS to let kids opt out, the case made its way to the Supreme Court.

A sympathetic court

The conservative justices on the high court appeared to think the parents' position reasonable, the district's reasoning questionable, and the LGBT propaganda inappropriate for young children.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Alan Schoenfeld, who represented the school board, that the parents are not asking the district "to change what's taught in the classroom. They're not asking you to change that at all."

Kavanaugh clarified that "they're only seeking to be able to walk out so that they don't have — so the parents don't have their children exposed to these things that are contrary to their own beliefs."

Justice Samuel Alito appeared to be of a similar mind, saying, "The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum. They're just saying, 'Look, we want out.' Why isn't that feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?"

'It's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with.'

Justice Clarence Thomas was keen to know whether the consumption of the LGBT propaganda was voluntary or compelled, asking "why the record shows that the children are more than merely exposed to these sorts of things in the storybooks."

Eric Baxter, who argued on behalf of the parents and serves as vice president at Becket, emphasized to Justice Thomas that "teachers are required to use the books"; that the school board made clear "that every student would be taught from the inclusivity storybooks"; and that plaintiffs' alternatives to sending their kids to these mandatory readings were "criminal fines or penalties or the expense of private school."

Justice Alito acknowledged that the books were ideological in nature and in conflict with the parents' views, noting that in the case of "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," the "book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with."

Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that certain statements from board members hint at a hostility toward parents' sincerely held religious beliefs.

"We have some statements from board members suggesting the students were ... parroting their parents' dogma, suggesting that some parents might be promoting hate, and suggesting that it was unfortunate that they were taking a view endorsed by white supremacists and xenophobes," said Gorsuch.

Schoenfeld claimed that the statements in which officials suggested parents were bigots "have been taken out of context" and that the record did not indicate they motivated the board to "adopt a policy that discriminates against people on the basis of religion."

'The Supreme Court, I predict, will stand with parents.'

When discussing whether it constitutes a burden to be exposed to this sort of instruction, Justice John Roberts suggested that unlike older students, younger children subjected to the LGBT propaganda are likely to naturally affirm what's being taught or presented in the books.

Judging from their questions to Baxter and Schoenfeld, the conservative justices appear to think that the district should simply accommodate religious parents.

Reactions

After going before the high court, Baxter said in a statement, "In this country, we've always trusted families to decide when their kids are ready for sensitive topics. Children shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, Pride parades, and gender transitions without their parents' permission. Today, we fought for common sense and parents' right to guide the upbringing of their children."

Billy Moges, director of the Kids First parental advocacy group that sued over the books, said, "Schools should be working with parents, not against us. We are our children’s primary teachers, not obstacles to be avoided. Today, we asked the court to remind Montgomery County — and the entire nation — of this fundamental truth."

"The Mahmoud case argued in the Supreme Court today is quite simple. Montgomery County school officials want to expose young children to progressive sexual ideology against their parents' wishes," said legal scholar Robert George, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. "The parents want to be able to opt their kids out of this propagandizing. The Supreme Court, I predict, will stand with parents — probably 6-3 (maybe even 7-2). It will be another victory for Becket, the public interest religious liberty law firm representing the parents."

Some activists are upset over the prospect of the high court once again upholding parental rights.

PEN America, a left-leaning organization that filed an amicus brief in support of the district, for instance, claimed in a statement that granting opt-outs for parents would "stigmatize LGBTQ students and families, who would watch their peers leave classrooms when books that include LGBTQ characters or themes are used."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Tough Case To Argue’: SCOTUS Poised To Back Parental Opt-Out For LGBT Content In School

'I guess I’m surprised, given that this is ... the hill we’re going to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty,' Kavanaugh said, telling the county attorney it was a 'tough case to argue.'

EXCLUSIVE: Ed Committee Member Unveils Legislation To Stop Gender ‘Indoctrination’ In Schools

'Restores sanity in the classroom'

It’s not a ‘power-grab’ — it’s a rescue mission for higher ed



Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the State Department had revoked more than 300 student visas. The move allows the Trump administration to deport noncitizens who participated in pro-Palestinian protests at universities across the country.

Rubio defended the decision when asked about concerns over free speech — specifically, whether protesting or writing about foreign policy issues could justify a visa revocation.

No serious nation should defend the rights of foreign nationals actively working to harm it under the banner of ‘free speech.’

“If you are in this country on a student visa and are a participant in those movements, we have a right to deny your visa,” he said. “We are not going to be importing activists into the United States. They’re here to study. They’re here to go to class. They’re not here to lead activist movements that are disruptive and undermine our universities. I think it’s lunacy to continue to allow that.”

Rubio is right.

Whether someone supports Israel, supports the Palestinian cause, or criticizes both, that debate is beside the point.

No one has a right to a U.S. visa — student or otherwise. If a visa-holder engages in speech or activism that violates the terms of the visa — such as promoting violence, disrupting public order, or engaging in unauthorized political activity — the government has the authority to revoke the visa and deport the individual.

A free people's suicide

The Trump administration has made this position clear, particularly in cases involving pro-Palestinian protesters who have expressed support for Hamas, which the United States designates as a foreign terrorist organization.

But the issue of foreign student activism extends beyond the Israel-Hamas conflict.

An analysis by the Capital Research Center found that many “pro-Palestinian” groups share ties with broader movements that oppose the United States and the West in general. These groups frequently advocate violence to achieve their goals, including the destruction of the U.S., which they label an imperialist “settler-colonial” state.

Revoking the visas of foreign students who disrupt public order or seek to undermine American society is both legal and necessary. But the issue goes beyond campus protests. With hundreds of thousands of student visa-holders from adversarial nations like China, the threat is not just ideological — it’s also a national security concern.

No serious nation should defend the rights of foreign nationals actively working to harm it under the banner of “free speech.”

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to a U.S. education. Attending an American university is a privilege, not a right.

Ideological takeover

Understanding the difference between rights and privileges is essential — especially considering the influence universities have on shaping American political discourse. While student visas are intended for academic study, today’s universities increasingly promote ideological activism over traditional education. And that shift is happening at the same time as the number of international students in the U.S. has grown to over 1 million annually.

At Columbia University, more than 55% of students are foreign nationals — an 18% increase between 2017 and 2022. NYU’s student body is 42% international, up 24% over the same period. This trend is just as pronounced at the graduate level. In 2023, international students made up 42% of Princeton University’s graduate program.

As foreign student enrollment rises alongside campus political activism, the Trump administration has the authority and obligation to respond decisively to the growing influence of ideological movements within universities.

In a series of aggressive actions, the administration has withheld hundreds of millions in federal funding from institutions like Columbia University for what it calls “inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” It has also launched investigations into other universities over allegations of race-based segregation and transgender athletic policies. Through executive order, the administration has taken steps to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education — a long-standing goal for many conservatives since the department’s establishment in 1979.

Whose ‘political will’?

Unsurprisingly, the left has responded with swift opposition, deploying both legal challenges and familiar media outrage.

Several academic groups have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration to stop the deportation of foreign students. Teachers’ unions have sued to block the administration’s move to revoke federal funding from Columbia University, while others have challenged its attempt to shutter the Education Department.

Mainstream media outlets have framed these actions as an “authoritarian power-grab,” accusing the administration of trying to “impose its political will on American universities, which foster curiosity and independent thought.”

Some critics have gone even further, likening Trump’s efforts to confront anti-American activism on college campuses to the Nazi-era program of Gleichschaltung — a system of totalitarian “social control.”

While American universities may be called many things, bastions of “independent thought” are not among them. Claims that Trump is seeking total “social control” are difficult to take seriously, given how heavily university faculty skew left.

A 2023 Harvard Crimson survey found that just 0.4% of Harvard faculty identified as “very conservative,” while 31.8% described themselves as “very liberal.” A broader study of 51 leading liberal arts colleges revealed a 10.4-1 ratio of Democrat to Republican faculty, underscoring a deep ideological imbalance.

This dominance of progressive ideology on campus doesn’t stay confined to the classroom. It flows into national politics, funding Democratic candidates and fueling an activist pipeline that often promotes anti-American narratives.

According to OpenSecrets, Democrats have received more than 70% of all political donations from the education sector in every election cycle since 2002. In 2018, donors from the education industry gave over $64.5 million to Democrats and just $7.8 million to Republicans.

Teachers' unions show an even sharper tilt. In the 2024 cycle, the National Education Association contributed 98.48% of its donations to Democrats and only 0.79% to Republicans. Employees of the U.S. Department of Education gave zero dollars to Republican candidates.

Rooting out radicals

Given the dominance of left-wing ideology on college campuses and the steady stream of campaign donations from the education sector to Democratic politicians, it’s no surprise that Democrats are fiercely defending what functionally operate as their institutions. Trump’s actions threaten not just campus activism but a political pipeline that helps sustain the left’s long-term dominance.

Far from representing an “authoritarian power-grab,” the Trump administration’s efforts mark one of the first serious attempts by the political right to challenge a system that has traded education for progressive indoctrination.

If the country hopes to reclaim its universities — a goal critical to the republic's long-term health — rooting out radical activism and defunding ideological strongholds must continue and accelerate. Republicans cannot afford to hand over the nation’s future to those who openly disdain it.

Education Department Funded ‘Remixing Textbooks’ To Advance Pseudo-Science And Gender Theory

The Education Department spent millions on 'remixing' text books in order to advance their far-left social agenda.

Gen Z Is The Most Conservative Generation In Decades Because They’re A Victim Of The Left’s Failures

The mystery is not that Gen Z is the 'most conservative generation in decades;' it is that Gen Z isn’t even more conservative.

AmeriCorps Is Being Used to Indoctrinate Participants With DEI In Violation Of Trump’s Executive Order

Training programs to enter AmeriCorps have been indoctrinating participants into having an anti-American worldview.

Students are trapped in mandatory DEI disguised as coursework



Diversity, equity, and inclusion is now effectively illegal at the federal level and in many states, including Arizona. However, university administrators and professors remain deeply committed to its principles. Rather than disappearing, DEI will simply be rebranded under a new name.

At Arizona State University, where I have taught philosophy for 25 years, the university’s charter states that ASU will be “defined by who it includes and not by who it excludes.” That sounds good, right? Think again.

'Diversity at scale' serves as a Trojan horse for racial and social engineering.

In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the use of race in university admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina. In response, universities like ASU insisted they were unaffected. The ruling applied to institutions that follow an elitist model with limited admissions slots, they argued, while ASU prides itself on welcoming as many students as possible — conveniently sidestepping the legal issue.

I support expanding access to education for as many students as possible. However, I oppose the continued use of race and ethnicity as a basis for determining how resources are allocated. ASU justifies spending more on students it deems “diverse” while allocating fewer resources to groups such as white Christian men. In effect, it continues to justify racial and religious discrimination.

Even with DEI bans in place, ASU remains committed to viewing everything through the lens of race. Worse, it allows outside influences, such as the United Nations, to shape its curriculum. For example, ASU’s required “sustainability class” follows a framework dictated by the U.N.

Let’s examine the details.

Introducing ‘diversity at scale’

Despite the new federal ban on DEI, ASU continues to insist it does not use race in admissions. However, DEI remains deeply embedded in its structure, rebranded as “diversity at scale.”

ASU now infuses racial quotas into every aspect of its employee and student structure, focusing heavily on racial and ethnic diversity. As a result, ASU is no longer defined by the students it includes but by those it excludes from accessing resources.

One way ASU ensures DEI remains central to its education model is through its mandatory sustainability course. Every undergraduate — 180,000 students and counting — is required to take this class, which appears to focus on environmental issues and resource management. However, a closer look reveals that the course is built around the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals from 2015, which extend far beyond environmental concerns into gender and social justice.

These SDGs, signed under the Obama administration, promote a wide range of progressive political goals, including an expansive definition of gender equality rooted in the philosophy of John Money, which allows for potentially unlimited genders. The course does not introduce these ideas for debate — it presents them as unquestioned facts.

By embedding social justice objectives within the SDGs, ASU has turned its sustainability course into a vehicle for reinforcing leftist ideological positions under the guise of scientific and environmental education.

To put this in perspective, the same federal government that has outlawed DEI in education is also expected to withdraw from these U.N. goals under the second Trump administration. Yet ASU has embedded them as mandatory learning, ensuring that every student is required to engage with these perspectives, regardless of federal or state policy shifts. This is not education — it is ideological conditioning.

Ideology trumps rigor

ASU has devised a clever strategy. University leaders recognize that outright racial preferences are now legally indefensible. Instead, they have shifted their approach to curricular mandates that are harder to challenge in court.

By making courses like sustainability a graduation requirement, ASU ensures that students are immersed in DEI principles — even when official policies prohibit DEI programs in admissions and hiring. The university uses United Nations modules to emphasize “diversity and equity,” while ASU itself focuses on “inclusion.” This allows the institution to claim, “We aren’t teaching DEI.”

This approach is especially significant in Arizona, where state laws ban DEI and race-based blame. Yet ASU continues to operate in ways that contradict these laws. “Diversity at scale” serves as a Trojan horse for racial and social engineering. The university argues that it does not exclude anyone based on race — a technicality that helps it claim compliance with Supreme Court rulings. But it still structures education around racial, gender, and social justice ideologies, ensuring that these perspectives dominate student learning and resource allocation. Those deemed “not diverse” receive fewer resources, effectively excluding them.

The sustainability class is just one example. Across multiple disciplines, ASU integrates DEI and social justice principles under different names, making it nearly impossible for students to graduate without absorbing these viewpoints. Faculty are trained in “inclusive communities” teaching methods; degree programs like the School for Social Transformation (yes, that’s real) and Gender Studies receive funding for activism under the banner of equity; and departments offer courses featuring terms like “social justice” to continue advancing the same race-based ideologies that lawmakers and courts have sought to eliminate.

ASU’s strategy provides a road map for other universities navigating federal and state restrictions on DEI. Rather than eliminating these principles, institutions will embed them deeper into the curriculum, disguising them within courses that appear neutral or apolitical. The language may change, but the objectives remain the same: instilling radical ideological commitments in students under the guise of academic rigor. Without realizing it, parents are enrolling their children in classes shaped by U.N.-driven curriculum.

For those who value academic freedom and political neutrality in education, this presents a significant challenge. Universities have quickly adapted to legal and political changes, demonstrating that they are more committed to their ideological agenda than the public realizes. As the federal government considers further action against DEI, policymakers must understand that restricting admissions practices alone will not be enough. The real battle now lies within the curriculum, where institutions like ASU have ensured that ideological conformity remains a requirement for graduation.

What can be done?

If DEI is truly to be removed from higher education, focusing only on admissions and hiring will not suffice. The curriculum itself must be scrutinized, and policies must prevent mandatory courses from becoming ideological indoctrination. ASU’s required sustainability course is a prime example of how universities continue to push radical political agendas under new labels, keeping DEI entrenched despite legal prohibitions.

As a parent or prospective student, you can take action by choosing a different institution. If you are a current student frustrated by paying for U.N.-driven coursework, contact Arizona state legislators and provide examples from your classes. Your voice matters in holding universities accountable.

As policymakers and the public debate the future of higher education, they must recognize that the battle has already shifted. The fight is no longer in admissions offices — it is in classrooms, where universities like ASU have embedded their ideological agendas in ways that will be far more difficult to dismantle.

The next question is whether this battle will also reach the courtroom. Will students file class-action lawsuits against universities that misrepresented their curriculum and promoted activism under the guise of education?

SCOTUS To Decide If Parents Can Reject LGBT Brainwashing For Their Children

To protect their religious beliefs and their children's innocence, these Montgomery County parents are taking their fight to SCOTUS.

Ohio Gov. DeWine proves immune to LGBT activists' pressure campaign, ratifies bill protecting parental rights



LGBT activists did their best in recent weeks to pressure Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine to veto Republicans' Parents' Bill of Rights. Their best was evidently not good enough.

To the chagrin of those averse to increased parental involvement and greater transparency about what children are subjected to at school, DeWine ratified HB 8 on Wednesday.

The legislation declares that "a parent has a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education, and care of the parent's child."

Blaze News previously reported that the law, which takes effect 90 days after ratification, will:

  • require that any "sexuality content is age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate for the age of the student receiving the instruction";
  • provide parents the opportunity to review in advance any instructional material that deals with sexuality and to opt their child out if so desired;
  • require swift parental notification of any major changes in a child's services at school, including requests by a student to identify as a member of the opposite sex;
  • ensure that schools cannot inhibit parental access to their kids' education and health records;
  • altogether bar school district personnel from encouraging kids to keep information from their parents;
  • require school boards to adopt a policy authorizing students to be excused from school to attend a course in religious instruction off school property so long as their parents sign off, arrange transportation, and cover related expenses; and
  • require parents to sign off before providing any type of health care service to a student with the exception of emergency situations, first aid, and other services required under state law.

"I think the basis for it for me, if you're a parent, you want to be informed what’s going on in your child's life,” DeWine said Wednesday, reported the Buckeye Flame. "Parents are the best teachers."

'It was opposed by educators and the LGBTQ+ community alike.'

Aaron Baer, the president of the Center for Christian Virtue, an advocacy group that championed the bill sponsored by Republican state Reps. D.J. Swearingen and Sara Carruthers, said in a statement following HB 8's ratification, "HB8 protects children by safeguarding parents' rights to make important decisions for their children."

LGBT activist groups alternatively did not take the news well.

Dwayne Steward, executive director of Equality Ohio, an activist organization apparently keen on continued secrecy, said that "it's deeply disappointing that Gov. DeWine has signed HB 8 when it was opposed by educators and the LGBTQ+ community alike because it punishes teachers and staff for supporting LGBTQ+ students who are already targets of bullying and harassment."

By "educators," Steward appears to have been referring at least in part to the leftist Ohio Education Association, a state-level affiliate of the National Education Association, which opposed the legislation.

The transvestite activist group TransOhio expressed grief over DeWine's bill-signing, insinuating the Parents' Bill of Rights was "hateful legislation" aimed at trying to "silence, erase, or harm" transvestites.

When asked Wednesday about whether the law would result in non-straight students being outed, DeWine reportedly said, "We love these students as we love anybody else. They're not only welcome in Ohio, but they're welcome in our schools. We want to protect them as we protect every other student. But I do believe parents are the most likely people to help that child."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!