Tag: parental rights

DOJ Launches Investigations Into 36 Illinois School Districts for Secretly Pushing Transgender Ideology and Gender Transitions on Kids Behind Parents’ Backs

The Department of Justice has launched sweeping civil rights investigations into 36 Illinois public school districts accused of pushing transgender ideology on students from pre-K through 12th grade.

The federal probe, announced by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division on Thursday, is also looking into whether these districts are allowing biological males into girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams, which would be a direct violation of Title IX and basic child safety.

The DOJ said it will be investigating whether the schools are promoting sexual orientation and gender ideology to students, and if they notified parents to allow them to opt out.

“The investigations will examine whether these Illinois School Districts, which are recipients of hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funding, are adhering to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Supreme Court’s extensive precedents on parental rights as recently reiterated in Mirabelli v. Bonta and Mahmoud v. Taylor,” the DOJ explained in a press release.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a press release, “This Department of Justice is determined to put an end to local school authorities keeping parents in the dark about how sexuality and gender ideology are being pushed in classrooms.”

“Supreme Court precedent leaves no doubt: parents have the fundamental right and primary authority to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children. This includes exempting their children from ideological instruction that contradicts their values or decisions about their children’s health and best interests,” Dhillon added.

Keep reading

Supreme Court rejects Florida parents’ challenge to school that ‘socially transitioned’ daughter

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Florida parents challenging school officials who withheld their child’s “social transition” from them under a since-rescinded policy.

In 2018, the Leon County School Board adopted a policy empowering schools to develop a “support plan” for students who wished to be treated as the opposite sex, including withholding the news from parents if a student did not want them to know. The policy was changed in 2022 after Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, but not before one pair of parents sued the school district for keeping them in the dark about “socially transitioning” their middle-school-age daughter.

CBS News reported that January and Jeffrey Littlejohn’s daughter, identified in court documents only as AG, had asked her parents to change her name and address her with male pronouns. They refused, allowing her only to adopt “J” as a nickname, so AG discussed her gender confusion with a school counselor. A “support plan,” complete with preferred name and pronouns, was established, but the Littlejohns were not notified until their daughter told them herself.

The parents sued in 2021 but lost through multiple appeals, based largely on the conclusion that the 2022 policy change rendered the issue moot. They had sought damages on the grounds that it was the school’s “course of conduct, not the contents” of the 2018 plan that were at issue.

So the Littlejohns appealed to the nation’s highest court, but Monday’s order list confirmed their petition has been denied without elaboration. How individual justices voted was not listed, but CBS noted that Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas previously urged the Court to resolve similar questions, indicating they most likely would have taken the case. If true, that would mean that all six remaining justices voted to deny the petition, as only four votes are necessary to hear a case.

The indoctrination of children with left-wing ideology on sexuality, race, and other agenda items has long been a major concern in American public schools and libraries, from book shelves to drag events to classroom materials to even “transitioning” troubled children without parental input. Many schools have also displayed hostility to the rights and employment of individual teachers who refuse to go along with such agendas. Across the nation, controversy has also erupted in recent years over schools and libraries adopting books that expose sexual themes and activity to children, often in graphic detail and with pornographic imagery depicting specific sexual acts.

Keep reading

National Parental Rights Group Founder: Homeschooling ‘One Of The Last Remaining Spaces Where Parents Maintain Full Autonomy Over Children’s Education

Connecticut Democrats’ attempt to gain control of homeschooling reveals a desire to “force homeschoolers into alignment with the same ideological materials and standardized assessments that have already sparked controversy in government schools,” Sheri Few, founder and president of United States Parents Involved in Education, wrote in an op-ed at The Hill last week.

The national parental rights leader observed that Connecticut’s HB 5468 represents “a troubling pattern emerging whereby government agencies fail in their most basic responsibilities and lawmakers find someone else to blame.”

Few referred to state Democrats’ attempt to regulate homeschooling after their own government systems failed to attend to “repeated warnings in tragic child-abuse cases.”

“It is hard not to see this as a political sleight of hand,” she asserted. “A crisis exposes government negligence, yet instead of holding those agencies accountable, lawmakers pivot to regulate an entirely unrelated group.”

Rather than celebrate the Connecticut parents who choose to homeschool, sacrificing, for their children, their time and perhaps an opportunity for additional employment income, Democrat lawmakers want to require them to notify the government of their curriculum and be subjected to screening by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the Department of Education.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rejects Massachusetts Case Over Hiding Student’s Gender Identity

Supreme Court justices on April 20 declined to take up a case involving a Massachusetts schoolgirl whose parents say officials wrongly hid their daughter’s purported identity as a male from them.

At least six of the nine justices declined to accept a petition to rehear a lower court verdict in the case, which was brought by the girl’s parents in 2022 against the Ludlow, Massachusetts, school district.

The vote count on the petition and how each justice voted were not disclosed, nor were any comments offered by the justices.

“Today’s denial by the Supreme Court is a missed opportunity to defend parental rights,” Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, who was helping represent the parents, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Social transition, including going by inaccurate or nonbinary pronouns and a different name, is a major intervention in a child’s life that puts the child on a difficult-to-escape pathway to medicalized transition, carrying the risk of life-altering damage. No school district should make important mental health decisions on behalf of parents and conceal those decisions from them, especially in opposition to the mental-health care that those parents have chosen for their children.”

An attorney representing the school officials did not return a request for comment by publication time.

Keep reading

Judge Rules Parents Have Less Say In Pediatric Vaccine Schedule

A powerful medical organization and its backers won a legal victory last week in an ongoing struggle against federal efforts to alter vaccine recommendations and return decision-making to parents.

On March 16 U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy issued a ruling that effectively halted the government’s lead vaccine recommendation group from meeting and stayed vaccine recommendations published under U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other left-wing medical groups sued Kennedy in July in response to his removal of pregnant women and healthy children from the Covid-19 vaccine recommended list. The group then amended its suit, filing multiple complaints challenging  Kennedy’s reconstituted immunization advisory panel and its votes. The AAP also challenged the revised pediatric schedule that the CDC published in January, which aligned the U.S. schedule with most developed nations by removing six vaccinations from the current schedule.

The American Academy of Pediatrics requested a ban on Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meetings; Murphy acquiesced in part, granting a stay on the ACIP appointment rather than an injunction, the same day the Supreme Court stayed another of his decisions. The March meeting of ACIP, at which the committee was poised to address Covid-19 vaccine injuries and recommendation processes, is now indefinitely postponed.

“The same day he is stayed for repeatedly refusing to follow the law, he issues another activist decision,” wrote Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on X. “We will keep appealing these lawless decisions, and we will keep winning.”

In his 45-page ruling, Murphy wrote that the government has “undermined the integrity of its actions” by sidestepping ACIP in the vaccine schedule revision process and replacing members without the use of “rigorous screening.” The newly appointed members, Murphy wrote, represent a “procedural failure … that … fails to comport with governing law.” Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act will likely be proven, he concluded.

Responding to Murphy’s decision, HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said that the department “looks forward to this judge’s decision being overturned” in a statement to The Defender.

Keep reading

Transparency: Suing Schools That Hide Trans Kids’ Identities From Parents

A few weeks before Christmas in 2022, Amber Lavigne was cleaning her 13-year-old’s bedroom when she stumbled upon her daughter’s secret: a chest binder. She learned that Autumn had been wearing the garment, which girls use to flatten their breasts to achieve a masculine appearance, for about two months at school in Maine, where she had adopted a boy’s name, Leo, and was using he/him pronouns.

It was the first of two chest binders Lavigne found that had been provided to her eighth-grade daughter by a social worker at the Great Salt Bay Community School, according to a federal lawsuit Lavigne filed in 2023, which is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Her lawsuit alleges that the public school not only aided and abetted Autumn’s gender transition but also hid the information from her parents.

“I think it’s important for parents to know that this is occurring in our public schools because I don’t think many parents believe that it’s as bad as it really is,” Lavigne said on a recent podcast. “When I was a kid, one of the first things I heard about adults is if any adult asks you as a child to keep a secret, there’s something wrong with that adult, and you need to come tell me immediately.”

“And now, I mean, it’s like we’re in upside-down land.”

The Maine lawsuit and others like it raise one of the most contentious issues in the broader conflict over transgender policies: whether a parent’s constitutional right to direct their children’s education and medical care extends to a circumstance that society has never grappled with until the past decade or so – a youth’s rejection of their biological sex, adoption of a new name and matching pronouns, and assertion of a new gender identity. And to what extent children who are transitioning or exploring gender options have the right to confidentiality if they worry about rejection and hostility at home.

Keep reading

‘The People Showed Up’: South Carolina Lawmakers Side With Parental Choice in Two Vaccine Votes

South Carolina senators clashed Wednesday over childhood vaccination policy, but ultimately sided with parental choice in two key votes, the South Carolina Daily Gazette reported.

A Senate Medical Affairs subcommittee voted 7-1 to advance legislation prohibiting vaccine mandates for children under age 2.

Minutes later, the panel voted 6-2 to reject a separate proposal that would have removed religious exemptions for the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.

Advocacy groups supporting parental rights called the outcome a major statement on constitutional protections.

“Yesterday was a remarkable day for South Carolinians — and a reminder to the rest of the nation and the world that constitutional rights still matter,” Andrea Lamont Nazarenko, Ph.D., of the South Carolina Health Rights Cooperative said in a joint statement with Ashley Jones and Christi Dixon of South Carolina Family First.

“At a time when inalienable liberties are increasingly restricted in the name of public health, the South Carolina Senate made it clear: not here,” the groups said.

Dawn Richardson, director of advocacy for the National Vaccine Information Center, said the decision to halt the MMR proposal sends a broader message about vaccine mandates.

“It sends a strong message nationally that forced vaccination with the MMR or any vaccine holds no legitimate place in health policy or law in the U.S.,” she said. “Vaccine mandates need to be repealed, not entrenched.”

The debate unfolded amid South Carolina’s largest measles outbreak in decades. State health officials reported 990 measles cases as of March 3.

Linda Bell, the state’s epidemiologist, told lawmakers that about 95% of measles cases involve unvaccinated people. She said infections appear to be slowing after a surge in vaccinations last month, which rose about 70% compared with February 2025.

Federal health officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are expected to arrive next week to help contain the outbreak, according to Reuters.

Keep reading

What’s Next In The Fight To Stop Schools From Transing Kids After SCOTUS Victory

A few weeks before Christmas in 2022, Amber Lavigne was cleaning her 13-year-old’s bedroom when she stumbled upon her daughter’s secret: a chest binder. She learned that Autumn had been wearing the garment, which girls use to flatten their breasts to achieve a masculine appearance, for about two months at school in Maine, where she had adopted a boy’s name, Leo, and was using he/him pronouns. 

It was the first of two chest binders Lavigne found that had been provided to her eighth-grade daughter by a social worker at the Great Salt Bay Community School, according to a federal lawsuit Lavigne filed in 2023, which is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Her lawsuit alleges that the public school not only aided and abetted Autumn’s gender transition but also hid the information from her parents. 

“I think it’s important for parents to know that this is occurring in our public schools because I don’t think many parents believe that it’s as bad as it really is,” Lavigne said on a recent podcast. “When I was a kid, one of the first things I heard about adults is if any adult asks you as a child to keep a secret, there’s something wrong with that adult, and you need to come tell me immediately.”

“And now, I mean, it’s like we’re in upside-down land.” 

The Maine lawsuit and others like it raise one of the most contentious issues in the broader conflict over transgender policies: whether a parent’s constitutional right to direct their children’s education and medical care extends to a circumstance that society has never grappled with until the past decade or so — a youth’s rejection of their biological sex, adoption of a new name and matching pronouns, and assertion of a new gender identity. And to what extent children who are transitioning or exploring gender options have the right to confidentiality if they worry about rejection and hostility at home.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Blocks California School Policy Hiding Kids’ ‘Gender Presentation’ From Parents

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major win for California parents seeking to protect their children from LGBT ideology in state schools on Monday.

In its per curiam opinion, the high court vacated a stay (“pause”) issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a December injunction by a California-based district court judge. That permanent injunction prohibited enforcement of a California policy that permitted or forced school employees to “mislead[] the parent or guardian of a minor child in the education system about their child’s gender presentation at school.”

In his order, District Judge Roger Benitez, a Bush 43 appointee, further required California officials to notify school personnel of his ruling and to include in materials for parents and faculty a statement acknowledging parents’ “federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.”

California parents’ victory was short-lived, however, because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals froze Benitez’s order a few weeks later. In its unanimous ruling, the appellate court’s three-judge panel of Democrat appointees claimed that state officials “have shown that ‘there is a substantial case for relief on the merits,’” and said it was “skeptical of the district court’s decision on the merits.”

The 9th Circuit’s decision prompted plaintiffs to file an application with SCOTUS, in which they requested that the high court vacate the 9th Circuit’s stay and allow Benitez’s injunction to take effect.

In its unsigned opinion, SCOTUS granted the plaintiffs’ request to vacate the 9th Circuit’s injunction “with respect to the parents because this aspect of the stay is not ‘justified under the governing four-factor test.’” The high court noted that the parents are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that they will suffer “irreparable harm” if the 9th Circuit’s ruling is allowed to remain in place.

The court’s order does not apply to the plaintiff teachers suing over the policy, however. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the plaintiffs’ application in full.

Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Keep reading

Families Receive $1.5 Million After Supreme Court Victory Over LGBT Storytelling

A Maryland school district that lost a recent U.S. Supreme Court case will pay $1.5 million to parents who weren’t allowed to opt their children out of LGBT story time, the families’ attorneys said.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs in the landmark Mahmoud v. Taylor case, announced the settlement on Feb. 20. The defendant, the Montgomery County Board of Education—which oversees Montgomery County Public Schools, the largest school district in the state—was also ordered to comply with court orders mandating advance notice and opt-out provisions.

“Public schools nationwide are on notice: running roughshod over parents’ rights and religious freedom isn’t just illegal—it’s costly,” Eric Baxter, Becket senior counsel and the lead attorney in the case, said in a Feb. 20 statement.

“This settlement enforces the Supreme Court’s ruling and ensures parents, not government bureaucrats, have the final say in how their children are raised.”

The Feb. 19 order from Judge Deborah Boardman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland did not specify the settlement amount but did say the plaintiffs are “entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs” outlined in a separate agreement. Three families and “Kids First,” an unincorporated association of parents and teachers, are listed as the awardees.

The Supreme Court announced its 6–3 ruling on June 27, 2025, and directed the litigation of remaining issues, including any settlement, to continue in lower courts.

The case dates back to 2022, after a group of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish parents told the board of education that, for religious reasons, they wanted to remove their elementary school children from book readings about same-sex romances between young children, gender transitions, and pride parades. The parents were denied permission to do so, even though the district and the state have policies and laws allowing opt-outs and requiring advance notice of such materials.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, stated that the government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of instruction that threatens the religious beliefs and practices that parents choose to instill in their children.

Baxter said the court had ongoing jurisdiction over the district to ensure compliance.

“It took tremendous courage for these parents to stand up to the school board and take their case all the way to the Supreme Court,” Baxter said in a statement.

Keep reading