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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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!’

Rep. Dan Meuser, a Pennsylvania Republican, is supporting the White House’s proposed tax hike for people making more than $1 million. 

‘I believe we must help the President deliver on his promise of a tax and regulatory plan that supports pro-American economic and manufacturing growth, and delivers for the vast majority of Americans – while creating savings and promoting fiscal responsibility. Any adjustments in taxes to accomplish these goals should be considered,’ Meuser told Fox News Digital in a statement on Tuesday. 

Last week, White House aides began quietly floating a proposal to House Republicans that would raise the tax rate to 40% for Americans making more than $1 million, sources told Fox News Digital about the preliminary discussions. The plan would shore up income to fund President Donald Trump’s ambitious campaign promises to eliminate taxes on overtime, tips and Social Security.

On Thursday, Meuser said on ‘Mornings with Maria’ that he suggested a less than 2% tax hike for the ‘wealthy, high-end income’ tax bracket months ago. He noted that Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the top tax rate from 39.6% to 37%, so raising it to 38.6% would still keep it below the pre-TCJA level by nearly one percentage point.

‘We’re fighting for small business. We’re fighting for all of America and for the job creators that might be in those categories. So, if you were to bring it up by 1 point, it brings $15 billion in revenues, right? Without any elasticity, which could take place. So, if it did come up to 39[%], it’s almost $25 billion,’ Meuser said, touting the billions in revenue that a small tax hike could reap for the economy. 

The Pennsylvania Republican, who joined Trump on the 2024 campaign trail and is considered a potential candidate to challenge Gov. Josh Shapiro in 2026, stressed Trump’s all-of-the-above tax approach.

‘The president is determined not to have a standard – and this is my view, from what I’ve based upon him, I’m not putting in words in his mouth – a standard Republican-style budget. What he wants to see is something that is in the interest of all America, middle-income America, small businesses, and by the way, we would be talking about an exemption for pass-through small businesses so they would not be paying at the higher rate, as they do now, at their income level rate,’ Meuser said. 

While Meuser has indicated his warmth to the idea of tax hikes for the ultra-wealthy, other conservatives have remained steadfast in their rejection of any tax increases. 

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital last week that tax cuts are ‘what Republicans are good at’ as he urged his fellow Republicans to protect tax cuts for working-class Americans who fuel Trump’s base. More Republicans, including Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Rep. Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin are pushing to make Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent, which is considered a Republican priority during budget negotiations. 

Former Vice President Mike Pence, who refers to the 2017 tax cuts as the ‘Trump-Pence tax cuts,’ last week urged House Republicans to stand firm against raising taxes on the country’s top earners and make the 2017 tax cuts permanent. 

Advancing American Freedom, Pence’s conservative policy advocacy group, sent a letter to congressional Republicans, including House Ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., and Senate Finance Committee Chair Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, last week, urging Congress to ‘stand firm against tax hikes.’

Fox News Digital’s Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.

A federal judge ordered the restoration of Voice of America (VoA) on Tuesday, the federally-funded state media network that the White House dismantled earlier this spring.

Judge Royce Lamberth ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, though the Trump administration is allowed to appeal the decision.

The plaintiffs asked the court to ‘cancel the orders putting approximately 1,300 VOA employees on administrative leave’ and to ‘cancel the termination of contracts with approximately 500 personal service contractors (PSCs) with VOA, cease dismantling VOA, and restore VOA’s personnel and operating capacities.’

President Donald Trump dismantled the news agency through an executive order (EO) in March, claiming that VoA promoted biased reporting.

‘The non-statutory components and functions of the following governmental entities shall be eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, and such entities shall reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum presence and function required by law,’ the EO stated. 

The EO also dismantled VoA’s parent company, the United States Agency for Global Media, as well as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 

‘Voice of America has been out of step with America for years. It serves as the Voice for Radical America and has pushed divisive propaganda for years now,’ a senior White House official told Fox News Digital at the time.

On Mar. 22, VoA employees filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration and Kari Lake, who serves as the special advisor to the United States Agency for Global Media.

‘In many parts of the world, a crucial source of objective news is gone, and only censored state-sponsored news media is left to fill the void,’ the lawsuit reads.

‘The second Trump administration has taken a chainsaw to the agency as a whole in an attempt to shutter it completely,’ the suit stated.

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton and Hanna Panreck contributed to this report.