U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday hosted Cabinet officials from across the Trump administration for the first meeting of a new interagency task force aimed at eradicating ‘anti-Christian bias’ within the federal government. 

During Tuesday’s meeting, Bondi described the task force as one aimed at remedying the ‘abuse’ under the Biden-led Justice Department and at other federal agencies prior to Trump’s second presidential term.

‘As President Donald Trump has stated, the Biden administration engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses,’ Bondi told a small group of reporters. ‘The president is right.’ 

Bondi was joined Tuesday by a long list of senior Cabinet officials from across the federal government, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, FBI Director Kash Patel, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Other senior agency officials were also present. 

Bondi also used the meeting to highlight some of the actions the Trump administration has taken to crack down on anti-Christian biases.

To date, the Justice Department has dropped three ongoing cases against pro-lifers and ‘redefined the FACE Act’ to help protect against what Bondi and others have described as the weaponization of pro-life groups and others.

Ultimately, ‘the First Amendment isn’t just the line in the Constitution. It’s the cornerstone of our American memory,’ Bondi said. ‘It guarantees every citizen the right to speak freely, worship freely, and live according to their conscience without government interference. Protecting Christians from bias is not favoritism. It’s upholding the rule of law and fulfilling the constitutional promise.’

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the group planned to use the meeting to hear from individuals who had been harmed as a result of ‘anti-Christian sentiment’ under the Biden administration, and the various ways this bias may have shown up in their departments or agencies. 

That part of the meeting was closed to the press.

Shortly before reporters were escorted from the room, Fox News asked the Department of Justice officials and other members of the task force whether they would share any examples of the anti-Christian bias within their agencies or any of the personal stories that they planned to touch on in the closed-door portion of the meeting.

The officials in attendance did not immediately answer the question, and Justice Department officials told Fox News and other reporters present that they would circulate more information after the meeting.  

Trump first created the task force via an executive order in February, with the goal of rooting out ‘anti-Christian targeting and discrimination’ within the government.

The president also selected Bondi to head up the task force — whom he praised as someone he trusted to ‘fully prosecute anti-Christian violence and vandalism in our society.’

The task force’s first meeting comes just days after Politico reported that the Trump administration sent an internal cable to State Department employees ordering them to report any instances of coworkers displaying ‘anti-Christian bias’ as part of the task force initiative.

The internal cable encouraged employees to share information via a tip form, noting that their responses could be kept anonymous, and was reportedly sent to embassies around the world, as well as the department headquarters in D.C.

‘Biden’s Department of Justice abused and targeted Christians,’ Trump said earlier this year. ‘Pro-life Christians were arrested and imprisoned for peacefully praying outside abortion clinics… NO MORE!’

Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor snapped at each other during Tuesday’s arguments over parental rights in LGBTQ curriculum after the liberal justice attempted to jump back into the questioning as Alito was speaking. 

The short quarrel happened as the high court listened to arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which a coalition of parents sought to solidify the right to be informed about and opt their children out of reading LGBTQ-related material in elementary schools — which they argue conflicts with their faith.

‘There is a growing heat to the exchanges between the justices. Sotomayor just tried to disagree with Alito’s portrayal and Alito pushed back and asked to allow him to finish,’ Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley observed on X.  

Sotomayor initially asked Mahmoud attorney Eric Baxter about a particular book titled ‘Uncle Bobby’s Wedding’ that included a same-sex relationship storyline and whether exposure to same-sex relationships in children’s books could be considered coercion.

‘Our parents would object to that,’ Baxter responded. 

Sotomayor continued with her line of questioning to further clarify Baxter’s objection to the books. Baxter stated, ‘Our objections would be even to reading books that violate our client’s religious beliefs.’

Alito then jumped in with additional questions related to the book.

‘I’ve read that book as well as a lot of these other books,’ Alito began. ‘Do you think it’s fair to say that all that is done in ‘Uncle Bobby’s Wedding’ is to expose children to the fact that there are men who marry other men?’

Baxter objected to Alito’s question. Alito then said that while the book ‘has a clear message and a lot of people think it’s a good message,’ some with ‘traditional religious beliefs don’t agree with’ it.

As Alito continued with his explanation, Sotomayor jumped in.

‘What a minute. The reservation is—’ Sotomayor began. 

‘Can I finish?’ Alito said. 

‘It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with,’ Alito finished.

As arguments wrapped, the Supreme Court appeared inclined to agree with the parents.

A coalition of Jewish, Christian and Muslim parents with elementary school children in Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland brought suit against the school board after it introduced new LGBTQ books into the curriculum as part of the district’s ‘inclusivity’ initiative. 

The curriculum change came after the state of Maryland enacted regulations seeking to promote ‘educational equity,’ according to the petitioner’s brief filed with the high court.

The parents lost both at the district court and the appellate level. The Fourth Circuit held that the parents had not shown how the policy violated the First Amendment.

The case comes at a time when President Donald Trump and his administration have prioritized educational and DEI-related reform upon starting his second term. The Supreme Court has notably also heard oral arguments this past term in other religious liberty and gender-related suits. 

The high court heard oral arguments earlier this month in a suit brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group’s bid for tax relief. The decision could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions. 

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, and David Spunt contributed to this report. 

With President Donald Trump back in the White House and the final rollout of federal REAL ID requirements set to take effect in May, many of the loudest privacy advocates in Washington have been largely silent.

While privacy-minded lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have spent years blasting voter-ID laws and TSA facial recognition tools, among other measures, few are raising alarms over the Trump administration’s looming implementation of the REAL ID Act — a law passed in 2005 that critics describe as a national identification system.

Some of the privacy-hawk lawmakers remaining silent on REAL ID were very vocal when another expansion of the national security surveillance apparatus came about – the Patriot Act of 2001 – but not so when the U.S. is only days away from REAL ID implementation.

Sens. Edward Markey, D-Mass., Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., were all in Congress when the Patriot Act faced ultimately-successful renewal in 2010s and when the 2020 bill amending and reauthorizing the related Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court came up for a vote.

‘Congress has a duty to safeguard Americans’ privacy, but the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act fails to adequately limit the types of information that the government can collect about Americans, and it fails to adequately limit how long the government can keep the information it collects about us,’ Markey said in a 2020 statement objecting to the FISA renewal.

‘I am unwilling to grant any president surveillance tools that pose such a high risk to Americans’ civil liberties,’ he said.

In 2011, Merkley was one of eight senators who voted to prevent the Patriot Act renewal from even coming to the floor for debate, according to Oregon Live.

His Beaver State colleague, Wyden, ultimately voted to allow debate, but said on the Senate floor during such discourse that it needs to be potentially reconsidered.

‘The Patriot Act was passed a decade ago during a period of understandable fear,’ Wyden said at the time.

‘Now is the time to revisit this… and ensure that a better job is done of striking that balance between fighting terror and protecting individual liberty.’

Merkley expressed concern at the time about the Patriot Act’s ability to let law enforcement collect many types of personal data like emails and phone records.

In order to get a REAL ID, licensees must provide their Social Security number and other documentation.

While the REAL ID implementation was delayed 20 years by several factors including COVID-19, Merkley cast a ‘protest vote’ at the time of the Patriot Act renewal that a four-year extension of the post-9/11 act was being put forth without sufficient time for debate.

In 2005, Wyden also gave a Senate floor speech opposing the first reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

Markey did not respond to multiple requests for comment, left at his Washington and Boston offices. Merkley also did not respond to a request for comment.

A representative for Wyden acknowledged Fox News Digital’s comment request, but said the Oregonian was traveling and holding town halls with constituents back home and could not be immediately reached.

On his senatorial webpage, Wyden offered a rundown of all his comprehensive actions in favor of privacy, as well as ‘le[ading] the fight to address the Intelligence Community’s reliance on secret interpretations of surveillance law.’

‘When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry,’ he said in 2011.

Wyden was also outraged in 2013 when the NSA was found to be secretly interpreting the act to collect personal data of millions of Americans without a warrant.

In a statement to Fox News Digital on privacy concerns with REAL ID, Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said REAL IDs rightly ‘make identification harder to forge, thwarting criminals and terrorists.’

‘Eighty-one percent of air travelers [already] hold REAL ID-compliant or acceptable IDs,’ McLaughlin said.

‘DHS will continue to collaborate with state, local, and airport authorities to inform the public, facilitate compliance, curb wait times and prevent fraud.’

Fox News also reached out for comment to a bipartisan series of lawmakers who have been party to pro-privacy bills or taken pro-privacy stances in the past, including Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., is officially entering the race to replace longtime retiring Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Barr, who has served in the House for over a decade, is expected to kick off his campaign in Richmond, Kentucky this evening.

He’s also releasing a video to launch the campaign that paints him as a staunch ally of President Donald Trump and a fierce opponent of ‘woke’ trends on diversity, transgender inclusion, and U.S. energy dominance.

‘The United States is the greatest country on Earth, and it’s not even close. But here’s the problem. The woke left wants to neuter America – literally,’ the Kentucky Republican said in the video. 

‘They hate our values. They hate our history. And goodness knows they hate President Trump. But here in Kentucky, that’s why we love him. I’m Andy Barr, and I’m running for Senate to help our President save this great country.’

His candidacy sets up a high-profile primary race against former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron.

In the video, Barr promised to ‘deport illegal aliens, instead of putting them up in luxury hotels,’ and ‘get rid of this anti-coal, do-gooder ESG garbage once and for all.’

‘Working with President Trump, I’ll fight to create jobs for hardworking Kentuckians, instead of warm and fuzzies for hardcore liberals,’ Barr said in the video. ‘And as a dad, let me be clear. I’ll fight to lock up the sickos who allow biological men to share locker rooms with our daughters.’

His Senate campaign has also been blessed by House GOP leaders, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., and House Republican Leadership Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.

‘There is no bigger supporter of President Donald J. Trump and our MAGA movement than my dear friend Andy Barr,’ Scalise told Fox News Digital. ‘I am all-in for Andy in his campaign for the US Senate — proud to support him.’

Stefanik said, ‘I am proud to call Andy a friend and I wholeheartedly endorse his campaign for US Senate. Kentucky needs a Senator who stands 100% with President Trump — that my friend, Andy Barr.’

Barr said their support ‘is a strong signal to all Kentuckians that there is only one America First candidate in this race — and only one candidate with a proven record of getting our America First agenda across the finish line.’

The conservative lawmaker has been known as a reliable leadership ally in the House and serves as chair of the House Financial Services Committee’s subcommittee on financial institutions.

He’s also a leader of several groups in the House, including the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, the Congressional Bourbon Caucus, and the American Worker Task Force.

McConnell is the longest-serving senator in Kentucky history and the longest-serving party leader in the upper chamber, only stepping down from leading the Senate GOP conference at the end of last year.

His final years in office have been marked by his rocky relationship with Trump, who has called for an end to McConnell’s political career on multiple occasions.

Trump and McConnell have also broken on matters of foreign policy and defense. McConnell opposed two major Trump nominees in the national security sphere, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth.

McConnell also opposed Trump’s Health and Human Services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Barr and Cameron’s campaigns are a stark departure from that – both have painted themselves as staunch Trump allies.

Kentucky businessman Nate Morris is also expected to announce a Republican bid for the seat.

And in Kentucky, where Trump outran former Vice President Kamala Harris by roughly 30%, the president’s endorsement will likely prove decisive.

When reached for comment on Barr’s campaign, Cameron’s campaign general consultant Brandon Moody hammered the House lawmaker.

‘The great Andy Barr re-brand is on as he now will try and convince Kentucky he’s actually conservative and MAGA. He’s not. Voters know he went Washington and sold out Kentucky long ago,’ Moody said.

Counsel representing a coalition of parents fighting for the choice to opt their children out of LGBTQ-related curriculum says the case is about letting parents ‘be the parents.’

‘We’re just saying if the school board is going to make that decision, let us have the chance to leave the classroom,’ Colten Stanberry, counsel at Becket and attorney for the parents bringing the suit, told Fox News Digital. ‘And so I think for my parent clients, they’re saying let us be the parents. Keep us involved in the school decision-making process. Don’t try to cut us out.’

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in parents’ fight to opt their children out of LGBTQ-related curriculum. 

The issue at hand in the case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is whether parents have a right to be informed about and to then opt their children out of reading books in elementary schools that conflict with their faith.

‘Our case is not a book ban case,’ Stanberry emphasized.

‘We’re not saying that these books can’t be on the shelves. We’re saying we want to be out of the class,’ Stanberry continued. ‘And we’re also not saying that teachers can’t teach this material.’

A coalition of Jewish, Christian and Muslim parents with elementary school children in Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland brought suit against the school board after it introduced new LGBTQ books into the curriculum as part of the district’s ‘inclusivity’ initiative. The curriculum change came after the state of Maryland enacted regulations seeking to promote ‘educational equity,’ according to the petitioner’s brief filed with the high court.

The school board introduced books that featured transgender and non-binary characters and storylines, according to the brief. 

The parents’ coalition stated in its brief that the Board ‘initially honored parental opt-outs in accordance with its own Guidelines and Maryland law’ after parents raised concerns over the new curriculum. After the board issued a public statement in line with this stance, the petitioners stated that the board ‘reversed course’ without prior notice. 

‘Without explanation, it announced that beginning with the 2023-2024 school year, ‘[s]tudents and families may not choose to opt out’ and will not be informed when ‘books are read,’’ the brief reads. 

The parents sued the school board, arguing that the denial of notice and opt-outs ‘violated the Free Exercise Clause by overriding their freedom to direct the religious upbringing of their children and by burdening their religious exercise via policies that are not neutral or generally applicable,’ petitioners wrote. 

The parents cited Wisconsin v. Yoder, a 1972 Supreme Court case, to support their argument. In Yoder, the Court held that a state law requiring children to attend school past eighth grade violated the parents’ constitutional rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to direct their children’s religious upbringings.

Stanberry says that while this case is much narrower than Yoder, the issue at hand is ‘a right parents have had from the Supreme Court for over 50 years.’ 

The school board argued in its brief, ‘The record contains no evidence that teachers have been or will be ‘directed’ or ‘instructed’ to inject any views about gender or sexuality into classroom discussions about the storybooks.’ 

The school board writes that the storybooks were ‘offered as an option for literature circles, book clubs, or reading groups; or used for read-alouds.’ 

‘Teachers are not required to use any of the storybooks in any given lesson, and were not provided any associated mandatory discussion points, classroom activities, or assignments,’ the brief continued. 

The lower court denied the parents’ motion, finding that they could not show ”that the no-opt-out policy burdens their religious exercise.”

On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s decision, with the majority holding that the parents had not shown how the policy violated the First Amendment.

Despite the lower court proceedings, Stanberry shared they are ‘hopeful and excited’ as the high court considers the case. 

‘We think this court will really consider the case,’ Stanberry said ahead of Tuesday’s arguments. ‘Obviously, I don’t have a crystal ball. I can’t predict how it’s going to come out, but we’re feeling good going into it.’ 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, the school board said its policy ‘is grounded in our commitment to provide an appropriate classroom environment for all of our students,’ saying the board believes ‘a curriculum that fosters respect for people of different backgrounds does not burden the free exercise of religion.’ 

‘Based on established law, as discussed in our brief and by our counsel at today’s argument, we believe the Supreme Court can and should affirm the lower courts’ rulings,’ Liliana LópezPublic Information Officer for the public schools, said. ‘Regardless of the outcome, we are grateful for the opportunity to have our case heard by the highest court in the land. We await the Court’s decision.’

The case comes at a time when President Donald Trump and his administration have prioritized educational and DEI-related reform upon starting his second term. The Supreme Court has notably also heard oral arguments this past term in other religious liberty and gender-related suits. 

‘I think that this case could be seen as people of faith coming forward and saying, ‘Hey, we want to be accommodated in this pluralistic society. So, I think it’s coming at an opportune moment,’ Stanberry said. 

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in mid-January during its 2024-2025 term.

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, and Kristine Parks contributed to this report. 

A Russian court reportedly slashed the sentence of an American who has been held overseas following a drug trafficking conviction. 

The sentence of Robert Woodland was reduced from 12.5 years to 9.5 years on Tuesday, his attorney, Stanislav Kshevitsky, told Reuters. 

It’s unclear why Woodland’s sentence was shortened. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Woodland was found guilty last July of attempting to sell drugs after he was arrested and found to be in possession of 50 grams of mephedrone, Reuters reported, citing prosecutors. 

Woodland, born in Russia in 1991, was adopted by American parents at the age of 2. He returned to Russia at the age of 26 in order to meet his birth mother, he claimed. 

At the time of Woodland’s arrest in January 2024, the U.S. State Department stated it ‘has no greater priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas.’

Kshevitsky said Woodland has partially admitted guilt, according to Reuters. 

Woodland remains held in Russia despite a number of recent prisoner releases during the Trump administration. 

Russian-American ballerina Ksenia Karelina, who was wrongfully detained in Russia for more than a year, was released earlier this month as part of a prisoner swap.

Karelina was sentenced to 12 years in a Russian penal colony after pleading guilty to treason for donating $51.80 to a Ukrainian charity in early 2024. 

In February, Trump brought American history teacher Marc Fogel, who had been detained in Russia since 2021, back to the U.S. 

Fox News’ Jasmine Baehr, Elizabeth Pritchett and Alex Hogan contributed to this report. 

The House GOP’s elections arm is offering to foot the bill for any future Democratic lawmakers’ trips to El Salvador after multiple progressive lawmakers traveled there in protest of the Trump administration’s deportation policies.

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) made the public offering on Monday – but any takers have to provide real-time video evidence of the visit.

‘If out-of-touch House Democrats are so desperate to cozy up to violent gang members, the least they can do is let Americans watch the show,’ NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella said. 

‘We’ll pay for the plane tickets, they just can’t forget to smile for the camera while they sell out their constituents.’

Progressive Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., was in El Salvador last week, where he met with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant married to an American citizen. The administration says Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang member with a violent history.

Democrats, in contrast, have painted him as a Maryland father and husband wrongfully deported under the Trump administration’s sweeping immigration plans. 

Four House Democrats – Reps. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., Robert Garcia, D-Calif., Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., and Maxine Dexter, D-Ore. – are currently in El Salvador with Abrego Garcia’s family lawyer in an effort to secure his release. 

Frost told Fox News host Will Cain on Monday that they had not been able to meet with him.

In their press release announcing the trip, the group said it was not funded by taxpayer dollars, though it did not say how it was funded.

It comes amid President Donald Trump’s standoff with the courts over his administration’s deportation of suspected Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gang members to El Salvador.

Democrats and human rights groups argue that the White House is denying due process rights to deported individuals, while supporters say the illegal immigrants’ hearings and deportation orders are sufficient evidence of due process.

The Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision earlier this month that ordered the Trump administration to arrange Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S. The court ordered the U.S. ‘to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.’

Republicans, meanwhile, are eager to tie Democrats to suspected criminals being deported to an El Salvador prison – particularly after border security and immigration proved potent issues for the GOP in the 2024 elections.

The NRCC’s Senate counterpart, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), released a video on X with a message to Democrats: ‘¡Bienvenidos a El Salvador Senate Dems! Democrats should feel free to make their trip to hang out with MS-13 gangbangers one-way.’

The 40-second video is a vacation-style clip advertising El Salvador as ‘the destination for Democrats seeking the thrill of bringing violent criminal illegal aliens back to America.’

‘Come witness Trump Derangement Syndrome in its purest form,’ the voiceover says. ‘So, what are you waiting for, Senate Democrats?’

Iran has carried out 1,051 state executions since President Masoud Pezeshkian took office on July 8, 2024 – a surge that security experts say the U.S. must weigh as it resumes nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

The figure, reported to Fox News Digital by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), represents a more than 20% increase from the number of Iranians killed in 2023, which saw 853 Iranians executed by the regime. 

In his race for the presidency, Pezeshkian aligned himself with moderates and reformists angry with the regime following the 2022 death of Mahsa Amini and the subsequent protests.

In a 2024 televised debate just days before he won the election in a record-low turnout, he reportedly said, ‘We are losing our backing in the society, because of our behavior, high prices, our treatment of girls and because we censor the internet.’

‘People are discontent with us because of our behavior,’ he added, prompting hope that Pezeshkian – who has also expressed a willingness to engage with the U.S. in nuclear negotiations – might bring some reform Iranians had long pushed for from the oppressive regime. 

But executions targeting those arrested for drug-related offenses, dissents and those involved in the 2022 protests have only increased – including the increased killings of women and those who were minors at the time of their alleged offense.

‘Such levels of savagery and brutality reflect the deadly deadlock in which the ruling religious fascism in Iran is trapped,’ the NCRI said in a statement on Monday. ‘[Supreme Leader of Iran Ali] Khamenei is desperately trying to prevent a nationwide uprising and the inevitable overthrow of his regime through executions and killings.’

Amnesty International reported earlier this month that girls as young as 9 years old can be sentenced to execution, while for boys it starts at age 15. 

‘At least 73 young offenders were executed between 2005 and 2015. And the authorities show no sign of stopping this horrific practice,’ the organization added, noting that the U.N. reports there are at least 160 people facing death row for crimes they committed while under the age of 18, though it also notes that that number is likely a low representation of the actual figures. 

The human rights atrocities come as the U.S. is looking to secure a nuclear deal with Tehran, and officials are calling on the international community to consider Iran’s record of abuse in its negotiations with the regime.

Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the NCRI, has ‘urged the international community to condition any dealings with the regime on the cessation of torture and executions, refer Iran’s human rights violations file to the U.N. Security Council, and, as requested by the U.N. special rapporteur in the July 2024 report, bring Ali Khamenei and other regime leaders to justice for crimes against humanity and genocide.’

‘After suffering irreparable setbacks in the region and facing the growing threat of an uprising and overthrow, the regime has brutally accelerated executions and massacres,’ she said in a statement to Fox News Digital. 

She has also called on the Iranian people, ‘especially the youth,’ to protest the executions by joining the ‘No to Execution’ movement.

However, students across Iran face a real threat in opposing the regime, as Pezeshkian and Iran’s minister of education, Alireza Kazemi, have reportedly dispatched State Security Forces to tamp down on what Khamenei has deemed ‘cultural infiltration, the enemy’s lifestyle, and hostile temptations’ targeting Iran’s youth. 

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday from religious parents who say young children can’t be expected to separate a teacher’s moral messages from their family’s beliefs – raising the question of whether exposure to LGBTQ-themed storybooks in elementary classrooms constitutes ‘coercion.’

Eric S. Baxter, the attorney representing Maryland parents in Mahmoud v. Taylor, told the justices that Montgomery County Public Schools violated the First Amendment by denying opt-out requests for books that ‘contradict their religious beliefs,’ even while allowing exemptions for other religious objections – such as books depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

‘There’s no basis for denying opt-outs for religious reasons,’ Baxter said during oral arguments. ‘Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters.’

Justice Clarence Thomas asked Baxter about whether children were merely ‘exposed’ to the books or actively instructed by them. 

‘Are the books just there and no more, or are they actually being taught out of the books?’ he asked.

Baxter said teachers were required to use the materials in class. ‘When the books were first introduced in August of 2022, the board suggested they be used five times before the end of the year. One of the schools, Sherwood School, in June for Pride Month said that they were going to read one book each day.’

Parents, supported by religious freedom organizations, argue that this policy infringes upon their First Amendment rights by compelling their children to engage in instruction that contradicts their religious beliefs. The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Baxter whether exposure to same-sex relationships in children’s books could be considered religious coercion. 

‘Is looking at two men getting married… is that the religious objection?’ she asked, referencing the book, ‘Uncle Bobby’s Wedding.’ ‘The most they’re doing is holding hands.’

Baxter maintained that it depends on the family’s faith. ‘Our parents would object to that,’ he said. ‘Their faith teaches… they shouldn’t be exposed to information about sex during their years of innocence without being accompanied by moral principles.’

Justice Samuel Alito inquired about the developmental capacity of young children as young as 4 to question classroom teachings and moral instruction.

‘Would you agree that there comes a point when a student is able to make that distinction?’ he asked. ‘That my teacher… isn’t necessarily going to be correct on everything. It is possible for me to disagree with him or her on certain subjects?’

Baxter agreed.

‘That’s right,’ he said. ‘And many of our clients’ objections would be diminished as their children got older.’

But Baxter stood strong on the point that age matters, especially in this case. He argued even Montgomery County school officials had acknowledged some books were not age-appropriate and criticized their attitude toward religious perspectives.

‘In a situation where Montgomery County’s own principals objected that these books were inappropriate for the age, they were dismissive of religion and shaming toward children who disagree,’ Baxter said. ‘The board itself withdrew two of the books for what it said were content concerns, because it finally agreed that what parents and petitioners – and its own principals – are saying was accurate.’

Mahmoud v. Taylor is one of three major religious cases the Supreme Court has on the docket for this year.  

Earlier this month, the high court heard a case brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group’s bid for tax relief, which could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions. 

At issue in that case is whether the Wisconsin branch of Catholic Charities, a social services organization affiliated with Catholic dioceses across the country, can successfully contest the state’s high court determination that it is ineligible for a religious tax exemption because it is not ‘operated primarily for religious purposes.’

The third case is about whether a Catholic online school can become the first religious charter school in the U.S. 

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a closely watched case that could reshape the role of parental rights and religious freedom in public education. 

At issue is whether a Maryland school district violated the First Amendment by requiring elementary school students to engage with LGBTQ+ storybooks that include topics about gender transitions and same-sex relationships, without allowing parents to opt out. 

The policy was implemented to disrupt ‘cisnormativity’ and promote inclusivity, according to Supreme Court documents. Initially, the school allowed parents to opt their children out of these lessons, but later reversed this decision, eliminating the opt-out option and not notifying parents when such content was being taught.

Parents, supported by religious freedom organizations, argue that this policy infringes upon their First Amendment rights by compelling their children to engage in instruction that contradicts their religious beliefs. The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school.

Thomas More Society attorney Michael McHale told Fox News Digital in a previous interview that ‘while there is an opt-out statute in state law, the school initially abided by it.’

‘The school decided to yank the opt-out exception, so to speak, and it really triggered the issue of whether the Constitution requires an opt-out in that circumstance,’ McHale said. 

‘For the Fourth Circuit to say there was no religious burden, it really seems radical, and given how pressing that issue of school curriculum on sexual orientation, gender identity is, I think it raises an issue worth the Supreme Court’s attention,’ he said.

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed several executive orders related to gender policies in federal institutions. McHale said these actions could reduce legal conflicts involving religious rights, such as disputes over whether teachers must use students’ preferred pronouns in schools.

Mahmoud v. Taylor is one of three major religious cases the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for this year.  

Earlier this month, the high court heard a case brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group’s bid for tax relief, which could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions. 

At issue in that case is whether the Wisconsin branch of Catholic Charities, a social services organization affiliated with Catholic dioceses across the country, can successfully contest the state’s high court determination that it is ineligible for a religious tax exemption because it is not ‘operated primarily for religious purposes.’

The third case is about whether a Catholic online school can become the first religious charter school in the U.S.