In this episode of Passing Judgment, we tackle the Supreme Court battle over Louisiana’s redistricting and its far-reaching implications for voting rights. Host Jessica Levinson and NPR’s Hansi Lo Wang unpack the legal fight over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, explaining how redistricting shapes the power of racial minorities and the future of partisan gerrymandering. Join us as we break down what’s at stake for Congress, the states, and the promise of equal representation.
Here are three key takeaways from the episode:
Redistricting = Real Voting Power: How district lines are drawn can dramatically dilute or amplify your vote. Redistricting is a complex, often opaque process with huge, tangible consequences for representation.
Supreme Court Decisions Have National Impact: The outcome of Louisiana’s case (and similar cases) could directly affect minority representation in Congress and potentially lock in partisan advantages for years to come.
Tension Between Race & Partisan Politics: The debate isn’t just about protecting minority voters. The Court is grappling with whether racial considerations in redistricting are required or unconstitutional, especially since partisan gerrymandering is now out of reach for federal courts.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson welcomes Jan Wolfe of Reuters to break down a major Supreme Court case that could reshape voting rights nationwide. They discuss how a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional map escalated into a broader attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—one of the remaining federal protections against racial discrimination in voting. Jan and Jessica unravel the complexities of the case, the Supreme Court’s skepticism, and the potential consequences: from narrowing how race can be considered in redistricting, to making it much harder to bring successful claims under Section 2. The episode also takes a look at other high-profile cases on the Supreme Court’s docket, including questions of executive power and social issues, highlighting the legal and political stakes at play this term.
Here are three key takeaways from the episode:
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is at a crossroads:
Following the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County decision (which gutted Section 5 preclearance provisions), Section 2 remains the primary tool to challenge racially discriminatory voting practices. This case could either hobble or maintain its effectiveness, depending on how the justices rule.
The current dispute reflects broader battles over race and "colorblindness":
The case sits at the intersection of redistricting and the recent trend in the Court toward a “colorblind” constitutional interpretation—reminiscent of last year’s affirmative action ruling. The outcome could make it significantly harder to prove voting power is being diluted due to race, with huge consequences for minority representation.
The Court's decision may have national ripple effects—or remain narrow:
While the justices have options ranging from a sweeping redefinition of Section 2 to a narrow ruling specific to Louisiana, the oral arguments showed splintering among conservatives and uncertainty about the ultimate path forward. Watch for possible “off ramps” that limit the case’s impact nationally.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, we cover the arraignment of former FBI Director James Comey. Host Jessica Levinson explains the charges against Comey and outlines his defense strategies, including claims of vindictive prosecution and challenges to the validity of the prosecutor’s appointment. Tune in as Jessica breaks down the legal complexities and what this high-profile case means for the broader landscape of justice.
Here are three key takeaways from the episode:
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson is joined by Politico’s Nicholas Wu to break down the causes and consequences of the ongoing government shutdown. They discuss how partisan divides, failed budget talks, and the Senate filibuster have led to a halt in government services and potential spikes in healthcare costs. Nicholas shares what this means for everyday Americans, the political strategies on both sides, and why the shutdown could last for weeks. Tune in for a clear explanation of how we got here, what’s happening now, and what may come next on Capitol Hill.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Trump administration’s move to federalize the National Guard in Oregon amid Portland protests. She explains Oregon’s lawsuit against the federal government, outlining key arguments such as the improper use of federal authority, possible violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, and state sovereignty issues. Jessica evaluates each argument’s strength, noting that courts usually defer to presidential discretion in these cases. The episode offers a clear overview of the unfolding legal battle and what’s at stake for both state and federal powers.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
1. Federalization of the National Guard in Oregon
2. Oregon’s Legal Arguments Against Federalization
3. Legal Analysis of Oregon’s Chances
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica is joined by David Goodman of the New York Times to break down the unexpected surge of mid-cycle redistricting in Texas. They discuss how political maneuvering by Republicans—aimed at flipping congressional seats—has triggered national reverberations, with states like California now considering similar actions to counter Texas. The episode dives into the partisan motivations, the legal and political pushback, and the threat to independent redistricting commissions. Together, Jessica and David make sense of the fast-evolving redistricting landscape and its far-reaching impact on representation and the future balance of power in Congress.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
Mid-Cycle Redistricting—Why Now? The episode opens with an exploration of why an unusual mid-cycle redistricting is being discussed in 2025, even though redistricting typically happens every ten years after the census. The trigger for this push is political: Republicans, facing a narrow margin in the U.S. House, sought ways to gain additional seats, focusing first on Texas where state Republican control made this feasible.
The Politics and Justification of Gerrymandering Both Jessica and David highlight that Texas Republicans were fully open about the political motives behind redrawing district lines—to flip as many as five Democratic seats to Republican. They justified this by pointing out gerrymandering in Democratic-led states and emphasizing partisan advantage as allowed by the Supreme Court, which has found political gerrymandering to be outside federal judicial review.
The Domino Effect—Other States Respond Texas’s actions triggered similar conversations in other states. However, David points out that most opportunities for follow-on aggressive redistricting are found in Republican-led states because many Democratic-led states (like California and New York) have independent redistricting commissions, which limit the legislature’s ability to redraw maps for partisan gain. States specifically considered for similar moves include Indiana, Missouri, and Florida, while California emerged as the prime Democratic candidate, though with significant procedural hurdles.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks the legal issues behind Jimmy Kimmel’s temporary show suspension. She explains the distinction between private action by ABC and possible government coercion from the FCC or the President, outlining why the First Amendment generally protects speech from government—not private—actions. Jessica also discusses the limited circumstances under which the FCC could revoke broadcast licenses and what this case means for free speech and media organizations moving forward.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
1. The Suspension and Return of Jimmy Kimmel’s Show
Jessica Levinson opens the episode by explaining the sequence of events around Jimmy Kimmel’s temporary suspension from ABC after a controversial comment in his monologue. She emphasizes that although he has now been returned to air, the legal issues discussed still remain relevant.
2. The Role and Limits of the First Amendment
A central theme is clarifying what the First Amendment protects. Jessica explains that the First Amendment limits government action against speech, not actions taken by private entities like ABC. If ABC alone had suspended Kimmel with no government involvement, it would not be a First Amendment issue.
3. Government Involvement and the FCC’s Role
The episode explores concerns about potential government overreach, specifically whether statements made by the FCC chair or the President could constitute government coercion. Jessica details how, if the government pressures a private company to take action against someone’s speech, First Amendment concerns are triggered.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, we delve into the high-stakes legal battle over the attempted removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Jessica explains the Trump administration's push to fire Cook, the court's decision to reinstate her, and the looming emergency appeal. Tune in as we explore the legal protections for Fed governors, the fight over presidential power, and why this showdown could impact both the central bank’s independence and the broader economy.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
Legal Battle Over Federal Reserve Independence: Jessica discusses the attempt by the Trump administration to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. She explains this centers on whether a president can remove a sitting Fed governor and under what circumstances, which is a pivotal question about the independence of the central bank.
The Law and Statutory Interpretation: The conversation delves into the Federal Reserve Act, which only allows removal of board members “for cause.” There’s debate on what “for cause” means—whether it should be restricted to on-the-job misconduct or include actions before taking office. The district court judge sided with the narrower reading, that it should only pertain to conduct while in office.
Due Process and Rights of the Removed Official: A significant part of the discussion is about whether Lisa Cook was given due process. The judge found she likely wasn’t given adequate notice or opportunity to respond to the allegations, which could be a violation of her rights.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks two recent Supreme Court emergency decisions. First, she discusses the Court’s move to allow ICE raids in Los Angeles to proceed, highlighting the legal debate over what constitutes reasonable suspicion for immigration enforcement. Next, she examines a ruling permitting President Trump to fire an FTC commissioner, raising questions about presidential authority over executive agencies.
Jessica then dives into a major Federal Circuit Court decision striking down President Trump’s expansive tariffs, explaining why the court found he lacked statutory authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). With the Trump administration seeking Supreme Court review, Jessica explores what these rulings mean for executive power, immigration, and international trade.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
1. 1. Supreme Court Emergency Docket Decisions: Jessica opens the episode with a breakdown of two new decisions from the Supreme Court’s “emergency docket.” These aren’t full decisions on the merits, but rather interim rulings that signal how the Court may eventually decide, and have real practical effects in the meantime.
2. The Federal Circuit Court’s Landmark Ruling on Tariffs: Jessica explains a recent and highly significant Federal Circuit Court decision regarding President Trump’s use of reciprocal tariffs. The court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose sweeping tariffs as he did.
3. The Core Legal Issue: Presidential Authority Under the IEEPA: A central theme is whether the IEEPA grants the president power to impose tariffs. The court found it does not, highlighting that the statute’s language does not include terms like "tariff," "duty," or "tax," distinguishing it from other statutes where Congress has explicitly delegated tariff authority.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson welcomes Reuters reporter Joseph Axe to discuss the intensifying battle over redistricting across the country. They examine Texas’ unprecedented mid-decade redistricting push, California’s proposed response, and the broader trend of overt partisan gerrymandering. The episode delves into what these changes mean for voters, political polarization, and the balance of power in Congress, highlighting how the fight over district lines could have lasting impacts on American democracy.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
What is Redistricting and Why It’s Unusually Timely Now: The discussion highlights why redistricting is happening now, outside the normal decade cycle, mainly due to political pressure—specifically, former President Trump urging Texas to redraw its maps to increase Republican representation.
The Texas Redistricting Battle: There’s a deep dive into recent, unprecedented actions in Texas, where Republicans are seeking to replace a map they themselves passed just four years ago with one even more favorable to their party.
Partisan vs. Racial Gerrymandering: Political gerrymandering is drawing lines to benefit a party (now effectively permitted by the Supreme Court), while racial gerrymandering—diluting the voting power of racial minorities—remains illegal, though often overlaps with partisan efforts.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of The Passing Judgment Podcast, host Jessica Levinson recaps the latest legal developments with the Menendez brothers. After being resentenced in May 2025 to 50 years to life, Lyle and Eric Menendez became eligible for parole and recently had hearings—but both were denied, mainly due to the brutal nature of their crime and rule violations in prison. Jessica explains that their legal team is still pursuing release through a habeas corpus petition (based on new abuse allegations) and a clemency request to Governor Newsom, although both are unlikely to succeed.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
Resentencing & Parole Eligibility: A recent resentencing in May 2025 made the brothers eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender framework, even though they were originally sentenced to life without parole.
Recent Parole Board Denials: Despite the new eligibility, both Eric and Lyle were denied parole this August, with rule violations and the brutal nature of their crimes weighing heavily against them.
Multiple Ongoing Legal Paths: In addition to parole, the Menendez team is pursuing a habeas corpus petition (introducing new evidence) and a clemency request to the governor, though both face significant legal hurdles.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down three major legal developments: the Supreme Court allowing Mississippi’s age verification law for social media to take effect while litigation continues, a renewed but unlikely push to overturn the Court’s marriage equality decision in Obergefell, and a federal court ruling enabling potential mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Jessica explains what these cases mean for our rights and daily lives, highlighting the ongoing balance between state power, individual liberties, and consumer protection.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
Supreme Court and Mississippi’s Social Media Age Verification Law: The episode opens with a discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision to allow Mississippi’s new law requiring age verification for children on social media to take effect while legal battles continue. The law mandates social media companies verify users’ ages and get parental consent for kids under 18. Supporters claim it protects children from online harms, while critics argue it’s vague, intrusive, and may violate the First Amendment.
Renewed Push to Overturn Marriage Equality (Obergefell v. Hodges): There’s renewed legal activity aimed at overturning the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The case gained attention due to Kim Davis, a former Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, now asking the Supreme Court to revisit the ruling.
Trump Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): The final major story discusses a recent court decision paving the way for the Trump administration to pursue mass firings at the CFPB—a federal agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of The Passing Judgment Podcast, host Jessica Levinson unpacks President Trump’s decision to deploy federal troops—including the National Guard and Marines—to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Jessica explains the current California v. Trump trial, which centers on whether the administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act—a law barring the military from acting as domestic law enforcement unless certain exceptions apply. She discusses the difference between supporting federal agencies and directly enforcing laws, and outlines legal exceptions like the Insurrection Act. Jessica also details the president’s authority over the D.C. National Guard and the special rules for taking over the District’s police under the Home Rule Act.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
The Posse Comitatus Act at Center Stage: The ongoing bench trial (California v. Trump) challenges whether deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles crossed the legal line into direct law enforcement, potentially violating the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act.
Presidential Authority—A Legal Balancing Act: While the president (any president!) can federalize the National Guard, there are boundaries—like the Insurrection Act—that determine what those troops can actually do once deployed. This nuance will shape legal precedents nationwide.
D.C. vs. State Jurisdictions: The president has much more direct control over deploying and directing the National Guard in D.C., versus states like California. Taking control of local police, however, requires navigating additional legal steps under the Home Rule Act.
Mentioned In The Episode:
Follow Our Host:
In this episode, Jessica Levinson unpacks the major legal clash between Harvard University and the Trump administration over a $2.6 billion freeze on federal research funding that impacts vital medical studies. Harvard argues the cuts violate its First Amendment rights and the Administrative Procedures Act, claiming they're being punished for not complying with federal demands related to antisemitism policies. The Trump administration insists it’s merely a contract dispute, asserting their right to cut funding if Harvard doesn’t align with federal priorities. Jessica highlights that the judge in the case seems skeptical of the Trump administration's stance and notes that the outcome could have sweeping effects on academic freedom and federal funding for universities across the country.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
The Legal Battle Over Federal Funding and Academic Freedom: The episode centers on the case of Harvard University vs. the Trump administration over a $2.6 billion freeze in federal research funding to Harvard. Jessica Levinson explains that this legal clash is significant because it questions the extent of federal power over universities and touches on core issues of academic independence and freedom.
Harvard's Arguments: First Amendment and Administrative Procedures Act: Harvard argues that the funding freeze violates its First Amendment rights—claiming it’s being punished for not complying with federal demands that affect speech and institutional governance. Additionally, Harvard contends the Trump administration failed to follow the correct legal processes outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act, making the funding cuts arbitrary and lacking proper justification.
The Trump Administration’s Position and Judicial Skepticism: The Trump administration frames the dispute as a simple breach-of-contract issue, saying grant contracts allow for cancellation when an institution’s actions don’t align with federal priorities. In court, however, the judge sounded skeptical of the administration’s position, questioning whether the funding cut was improperly suppressing speech and whether there was enough evidence to justify such a drastic move.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson interviews Chris Stein, senior politics reporter for The Guardian US, about the "big, beautiful bill" driven by President Trump and congressional Republicans. Stein explains that the bill makes the 2017 tax cuts permanent, primarily benefiting high earners, while also introducing new deductions and extending some relief for select groups. He highlights significant cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, noting these changes are delayed until after the midterms, while increased funding for immigration enforcement and the border wall takes effect more quickly. The episode also addresses the bill’s large projected impact on the federal deficit and the political strategy behind delaying the most controversial cuts. Levinson and Stein wrap up with insights into House Democrats’ push for Trump-related Epstein files, illustrating the limited tools available to the minority party.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
Tax Changes: Immediate Relief, Long-Term Effects: The bill makes the Trump-era tax cuts permanent, creating significant (and expensive) relief that primarily benefits top earners, while also introducing temporary new cuts for working-class voters. However, not everyone qualifies, and the flipside could mean fewer resources for government programs.
Social Safety Nets: Delayed Pain, Lasting Impact: Major changes to Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps) are built in—including work requirements and shifting costs to states. Crucially, these cuts are delayed until after the next midterms, affecting rural and Trump-leaning areas the most, but the full consequences won’t be felt until later election cycles.
Immigration and Deficit: Shifting Priorities, Bigger Budget: The bill pours billions into border enforcement—including ICE, deportations, and the border wall—while still adding an estimated $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, eclipsing even the emergency pandemic-era spending.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Supreme Court’s two most significant cases of the term. First, she examines the Court’s ruling that sharply limits federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially in the context of challenges to executive orders like those affecting birthright citizenship. The episode then moves to the Supreme Court’s decision upholding Tennessee’s ban on certain gender-affirming care for minors. Jessica explains how the Court sided with state power, applying a deferential standard of review, and contrasts this with the dissent’s focus on equal protection for transgender youth.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
Limits on Judicial Power: The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal judges generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions unless Congress clearly authorizes it. This shifts significant power dynamic back to individual cases and underscores the role of Congress in expanding judicial remedies.
Nuanced Exceptions Remain: Despite the new limits, broad relief is still possible through class actions, certain state-led cases, and challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act. These pathways ensure there are still tools to address sweeping executive actions, though access is more restricted.
Transgender Rights Under Scrutiny: In the Skrmetti case, the Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, framing the law as a neutral regulation based on age and medical use—not sex or transgender status. Dissenting justices warn this approach threatens protections for vulnerable groups and diminishes the judiciary’s role as a check on legislative overreach.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks two pressing legal issues. First, she explores whether the President can legally bomb Iran, looking at the balance of war powers between Congress and the President, the War Powers Resolution, and recent historical precedents. Then, Jessica provides an update on the legal showdown between California Governor Newsom and the Trump administration over federalizing the National Guard, analyzing a recent Ninth Circuit decision and the role of the Posse Comitatus Act. Tune in as Jessica breaks down these timely constitutional questions and their real-world implications.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
Presidential War Powers Are Limited—But Vague: Under Article 2 of the Constitution, the President can order military action in response to imminent threats or sudden attacks, but only Congress can declare war. The limits of what constitutes “imminent threat” or “war in the constitutional sense” are not clearly defined, leading to ongoing legal gray areas.
Congressional Oversight Remains Weak: While laws like the War Powers Resolution were intended to check the President’s power, in practice Congress often cedes authority, rarely using funding powers to halt military action even in constitutionally questionable situations.
Judicial Review Is Highly Deferential: Courts are reluctant to second-guess military decisions, frequently relying on the political questions doctrine and issues of legal standing. This means even if constitutional boundaries are tested, legal recourse is rare.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks the legal battle between California and the Trump administration over the federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. She explains the statutes at play, including the limits of the Posse Comitatus Act and the potential use of the Insurrection Act. Jessica details Judge Breyer’s ruling in favor of California, outlines the key legal questions for the upcoming Ninth Circuit hearing, and gives insight into the judges involved in this high-profile case.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
Presidential Power to Federalize the National Guard: Jessica Levinson opens by explaining the legal mechanisms the president attempted to use to federalize the National Guard and send them, along with Marines, into Los Angeles. She breaks down the relevant federal statute (Title 10, Section 12406), which gives the president limited power to federalize the National Guard under specific conditions, such as responding to rebellion or when federal law can’t be enforced with regular forces.
The Scope and Limits of Military Involvement – The Posse Comitatus Act:
Jessica addresses the significance of the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. Even if the National Guard is federalized, their direct involvement in law enforcement (like making arrests) is limited unless a separate statute (the Insurrection Act) is invoked.
The Insurrection Act as an Exception: She describes how the Insurrection Act is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, allowing the military to more directly handle law enforcement under certain conditions (such as widespread unlawful conduct or when state authorities can’t protect federal rights). She provides historical examples, such as federal intervention during desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s, and the Rodney King riots in 1992.
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, we examine the legal showdown in Los Angeles as President Trump sends the National Guard against California’s wishes. Host Jessica Levinson analyzes the president’s broad—though not unlimited—authority under Title 10 and California’s legal case challenging the move on grounds of state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment. Jessica explains how federal law and the Posse Comitatus Act restrict the National Guard’s role, and why courts are usually hesitant to overrule presidential decisions on national security.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
Presidential Authority to Federalize the National Guard Jessica Levinson breaks down the Trump administration's decision to send the National Guard into Los Angeles, despite objections from California officials. She explains that under federal law (Title 10), presidents have broad—though not unlimited—powers to federalize state National Guard troops. This authority can be exercised when there is a “rebellion or danger of rebellion” against federal authority, even if the state’s governor disagrees.
State Sovereignty vs. Federal Power California, led by Governor Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenges Trump’s move, arguing it infringes on state sovereignty. Levinson examines the legal conflict between state autonomy (protected by the Tenth Amendment) and federal authority as outlined in Title 10. However, she concludes that the statute grants the president clear authority in these situations, making California's legal challenge an uphill battle.
The Limitations of National Guard Powers (Posse Comitatus Act) Another key theme is what the National Guard can—and cannot—do once federalized. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the military from acting as domestic law enforcement. Levinson clarifies that under Title 10, the National Guard cannot directly enforce domestic law (like making arrests or searches), unless additional powers are invoked (e.g., via the Insurrection Act).
Follow Our Host:
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson previews the Supreme Court’s most anticipated pending cases as the term nears its end. She highlights upcoming decisions on nationwide injunctions, Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, evolving standards in discrimination lawsuits, and major cases involving religious exemptions and parental rights in education. Jessica offers her predictions and insight on how these rulings could shape the law and impact daily life, setting the stage for a dramatic finale to the Supreme Court term.
Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:
Nationwide Injunctions – Trump v. Washington/New Jersey/California: This case tackles whether federal district courts can issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal policies, as opposed to limiting decisions to just the plaintiffs in the case. The backdrop is Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, which attempts to limit who qualifies as a citizen by birth.
Transgender Rights and Equal Protection – Skrmetti: The Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on certain gender-affirming treatments for minors violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The predicted outcome is that the Court may allow such state restrictions, but notes there could be future challenges regarding parental rights under a different part of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Religious Objections in Public Schools – Parental Opt-Outs for LGBTQ-Inclusive Curriculum: A Maryland case considers if public schools must offer opt-outs for parents whose religious beliefs conflict with LGBTQ-inclusive materials and lessons. The prediction: the Court may require such opt-outs under the Free Exercise Clause, but will need to write the opinion carefully to avoid overly broad exemptions.
Follow Our Host and Guest:
