Parents, not progressives, know their kids best. They should control education.
The government should never stand between parents and their right to determine what's best for their children.
Democrats and teachers unions (sorry, I repeat myself) may think they own your kids and know best what they should learn.
They're wrong. It's parents.
Luckily, parents are winning. And the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 delivered another victory for parental rights in education.
That comes as a growing number of states pass laws offering a form of universal private school choice to families – Texas took that step in May, making it the biggest state to do so to date.
The Supreme Court considered a case out of Maryland that pitted a school board against parents. The Montgomery County district refused to give parents the ability to opt their children out of being exposed to books related to gender and sexuality.
The parents, who are a mix of Jews, Muslims and Christians, want oversight of what their kids – some as young as preschool – are taught at school, especially when it comes to LGBTQ+ topics.
The books in question were acquired by the district several years ago as part of a new 'inclusivity' effort. Rather than help kids learn about basic civility, they introduce young children to concepts like gender transitions, preferred pronouns and pride parades.
The concerned parents weren't trying to get the books banned. They just didn't want their children exposed to them.
The Supreme Court agreed, ruling 6-3, that the school board's actions were an unconstitutional affront to the First Amendment.
'The Board's introduction of the 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion,' wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the conservative majority.
Supreme Court stands for religious liberty – and parental rights
The main question before the court was whether 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.'
The majority answered with a resounding "yes."
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty represented the parents in the case, and the organization's lawyers told me ahead of the decision that the First Amendment was at the heart of the lawsuit. Refusing to give parents an opt out is a clear violation of their religious freedom.
As Alito said in the opinion, 'The right of parents 'to direct the religious upbringing of their' children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.'
Parents are winning outside of court, too
While the court's ruling is a significant victory for parents and should offer families greater say over what goes on in traditional public schools, parents are on a winning streak outside of court, too.
With Texas now offering a universal private school choice program, thousands of families will be able to choose from schools they previously wouldn't have been able to afford.
'The Texas win is the biggest day one school choice victory in U.S. history,' Corey DeAngelis, a senior fellow at the American Culture Project and a leading voice on school choice, told me. 'The political winds are shifting in favor of parents.'
There are now 17 states that offer robust private school options to all – or nearly all – families. Florida and Tennessee are among them. According to EdChoice, 45% of students nationwide are now eligible to participate in a private school choice program.
That's a number that would have seemed impossible a few years ago.
President Donald Trump has also made a strong stand for school choice, and Republicans in Congress are working on a generous federal school choice tax credit program. It's included in the 'big, beautiful bill' that has passed the House and is under review in the Senate. As designed, the program could introduce broader school choice to blue states that have resisted it.
The latest Supreme Court victory and the expansion of true school choice will benefit millions of American families. And the government should never stand between parents and their right to determine what's best for their children.
Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X, formerly Twitter: @Ingrid_Jacques
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Decision On Birthright Citizenship Could Cause Social Security Number 'Chaos'
WASHINGTON – The federal government could have to change how it issues Social Security numbers now that the Supreme Court has said President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship can take effect outside of specific cases where it's been blocked by a lower court. For decades, whenever a baby is born in the U.S., hospitals have notified state vital records agencies, which have in turn notified the Social Security Administration, that a new person needs a Social Security number. The so-called 'enumeration at birth' policy is automatic for the government and simple for parents, who merely check a box on a hospital form. Trump's order, if it takes effect in 30 days, could make the process more complicated, though neither the Social Security Administration nor the White House responded to requests for comment Friday about how it could change. Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, a liberal advocacy group that opposes benefit cuts, said the Supreme Court decision, allowing at least partial implementation of Trump's birthright directive, could create 'widespread chaos' and require more Americans to visit Social Security field offices in order to get Social Security numbers for their babies. The order forbids federal agencies to accept or issue documents recognizing citizenship to babies whose mothers are not lawfully present in the United States. The text describes exactly the sort of sending and receiving of documents that occurs through the enumeration at birth process. 'It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.' The order specifically mentions Social Security and gives agencies 30 days to issue public guidance about how it would be implemented. The Supreme Court's decision did not address the constitutionality of the order, which is plainly contrary to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, but rather the practice of lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions, like the ones several federal judges imposed blocking the birthright order from taking effect. The court said the injunctions can remain, but only to the extent they 'provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.' It's likely there will be lots more plaintiffs, class action cases and additional injunctions that could cover wide geographic areas. To the extent the order takes effect, in Altman's telling, the Social Security Administration will have to track court cases and devise some way of determining which babies are eligible for enumeration and which aren't, and that doing so could be extremely difficult. 'It might mean that SSA simply ends its enumeration at birth program, costing huge amounts of money, causing huge inconvenience, and swamping already overwhelmed field offices,' Altman said. Canceling or curtailing Social Security's enumeration at birth program would likely cause a public backlash, one that the Trump administration might like to avoid, since it's the way 99% of babies have received their Social Security numbers since the 1990s. In March, the Social Security Administration canceled vital records contracts with the state of Maine in an act of political retaliation against Maine's Democratic governor. The state notified parents they would have to visit Social Security field offices to get their kids' Social Security numbers, prompting an outcry that forced Social Security to quickly reinstate the contracts. Supreme Court Rules With Trump On Birthright Citizenship — And Chaos May Be Coming Trump Administration Forces Maine Parents To Visit Social Security Offices To Register Newborns (UPDATE) Trump's Victory In Birthright Citizenship Puts Him 1 Step Closer To Being A King
Fox News
33 minutes ago
- Fox News
LA County City CANCELS 4th of July Celebration Over THIS?!
A city in LA County is cancelling 4th of July fireworks to coddle illegal aliens. I'm Tomi Lahren, more next. LA is working hard to be as un-American as possible. Here's another part of it, the city of Bell Gardens in LA county has CANCELLED its 4th of July celebration due to ongoing immigration enforcement operations city leaders say threaten the immigrant population. This decision was supposedly made out of an abundance of caution and out of sensitivity to illegal aliens and their concerns. And it's not just the Independence Day celebrations, Bell Gardens is also cancelling movie nights for the same reason. They deem it due to 'resident safety concerns' because 96% of their population is Hispanic. I hope you all fully appreciate just how ON BRAND this is for LA County and for the Democrats who run it. Isn't this just perfectly symbolic of the Democrat party in these deep hellscapes? They will cancel a celebration of America to comfort and shield non-Americans who are here illegally. What won't LA do to legitimize illegal immigration at this point?! I'm Tomi Lahren and you watch my show 'Tomi Lahren is Fearless' at Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US supreme court rules schools must let kids opt out of LGBTQ+ book readings
The US supreme court has ruled that schools must give children the chance to opt out on faith grounds from listening to storybooks being read out loud that feature gay and transgender characters, in a landmark decision that will be seen as striking a blow for religious rights in education. In a case that exposed the passions surrounding the US's religious-secular divide, the court sided with parents in Maryland who protested that they were left with no means of shielding their children from the contents of six storybooks they found objectionable. The ruling means that the Montgomery county board of education – which administers schools in some of Washington DC's most affluent suburbs – must provide opt-out facilities. Related: US supreme court limits judges' power on nationwide injunctions in apparent win for Trump In the case, Mahmoud v Taylor, three sets of parents, comprising Muslims, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, complained that the board's policy in effect forced their children to hear storylines that they alleged promoted 'political ideologies about family life and human sexuality that are inconsistent with sound science, common sense, and the well-being of children'. One book, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, features a gay character who is getting married, while another, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, is about a transgender child. The parents in the case filed a complaint after education authorities decreed that parents should not expect to receive prior notice before one of the books was read out loud in class, thus enabling a child to leave the room for that period. The ruling was handed down after an initial hearing in April at which several of the court's conservative justices – who form a 6-3 majority on the bench – appeared sympathetic to the plaintiffs' case after lower courts refused to force the education authorities to change its policy. In the ruling, the conservative justice Samuel Alito wrote: 'We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.' At the end of Alito's judgment, the ruling stated: 'Until all appellate review in this case is completed, the [school] board should be ordered to notify [parents] in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' The ruling prompted a fierce dissent from the liberal justice Sonya Sotomayor, who said that public education was intended to be a unifying experience for children and 'the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny'. But she added that concept would become 'a mere memory' if pupils were 'insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs'. The ruling comes against a widespread conservative backlash in public schools and public libraries across many places in the US, but especially Republican-run parts of the country. The backlash has often sought to remove books that social conservatives find objectionable – often those that involve depictions of LGBTQ+ themes or racial inequality. Related: US supreme court rules key provision of Obamacare constitutional The American Library Association estimates there are at least 112 proposed state laws concerning schools and public libraries that seek to expand the definition of what is deemed obscene or harmful to children and to limit librarian staff's ability to determine which books they hold in their collections. In a statement, Catholics for Choice, which opposes the court's ruling, said: 'The Supreme Court decided that it is okay for parents to teach their children to discriminate and judge people who are different than them.' Taylor Tuckerman, a CfC vice-president, said: 'It's also important for children to learn that our differences – religion, sexual orientation, gender expression, race, economic backgrounds, and more – contribute to a thriving community and are not something to be ashamed of.'
