Podcast Summary: Strict Scrutiny – "Can Religious Parents Veto Books in Public Schools?"

Podcast Information:

• Title: Strict Scrutiny
• Host/Author: Crooked Media
• Episode: "Can Religious Parents Veto Books in Public Schools?"
• Release Date: April 28, 2025
• Description: Strict Scrutiny delves into the United States Supreme Court and the surrounding legal culture, offering in-depth and accessible analysis of key cases, cultural shifts, and judicial personalities.

1. Introduction to the Episode

In this episode, hosts Leah Litman and Kate Shaw, with Melissa Murray absent, dissect recent Supreme Court developments surrounding LGBTQ+ inclusive educational materials in public schools, the Affordable Care Act, the Alien Enemies Act litigation, and a rising pronatalism movement in the United States. They provide critical insights into how these legal battles reflect broader cultural and political shifts.

2. Can Religious Parents Veto Books in Public Schools?

Case Overview: Mahmoud vs. Taylor

Leah Litman and Kate Shaw begin by examining Mahmoud vs. Taylor, a pivotal case challenging the Montgomery County Public School District's decision to incorporate LGBTQ+ inclusive reading materials without allowing parents to opt their children out of such instruction.

• School District’s Decision: The district selected diverse books featuring LGBTQ+ characters through a participatory process that included parent feedback. They ultimately decided against an opt-out policy, citing logistical challenges and the potential stigmatization of LGBTQ+ students.

• Legal Challenge: Parents, representing religious objections, contended that their children should be exempt from exposure to LGBTQ+ content based on sincere religious beliefs.

Court’s Potential Ruling:

Leah and Kate discuss the Supreme Court's likely inclination to adopt a broad interpretation allowing parents to opt out if instructed content conflicts with their religious convictions.

Kate Shaw [08:48]:
"The six Republican appointees on the Supreme Court really truly do seem inclined to say something like the following. If teachers read books to students that contain ideas that parents find objectionable from the perspective of their religious convictions... a parent can demand that their child be excused from that portion of the instruction."

Implications:

This ruling could compel public schools to adopt curricula that avoid any content potentially objectionable to religious parents, leading to a homogenization of educational materials that sidestep diversity and inclusion.

Melissa Murray [09:18]:
"So the schools are likely to revert to whatever curriculum doesn't generate objections so they can just run a single classroom. So less Pride Puppy, more Dick and Jane."

Justice Alito’s Stance:

The discussion highlights Justice Samuel Alito's critical remarks regarding the inclusion of LGBTQ+ content, indicating a deep-seated opposition that extends beyond mere content disagreement to a fundamental disdain for LGBTQ+ inclusion.

Justice Alito [19:27]:
"...this book has a clear message and a lot of people think it's a good message... but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with."

3. Affordable Care Act’s Preventative Care Coverage

Case Overview: Kennedy vs. Braidwood Management

The hosts analyze Kennedy vs. Braidwood Management, which challenges the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) mechanism that mandates insurance coverage for specific preventative care services, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV.

• Employer’s Objection: The employer argues that mandating coverage for PrEP facilitates homosexual conduct, which they allege conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Court’s Consideration:

Leah and Kate suggest that the Court will evaluate whether the ACA's preventive measures infringe upon religious freedoms, potentially setting precedents for future health-related mandates.

Kate Shaw [34:38]:
"So here the employer specifically objects to the task force requiring companies to cover prep drugs. So that's pre exposure prophylaxis drugs that reduce the spread of hiv."

Decision Expectations:

The Supreme Court appears divided, with a possibility that Justices Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett might side with the challengers, questioning the constitutional basis of the ACA’s preventive mandates.

4. Alien Enemies Act Litigation Updates

Legal Battles:

The episode provides updates on ongoing litigation regarding the Alien Enemies Act, particularly focusing on extrajudicial renditions of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador.

• District Court Ruling: Judge Sweeney ruled that the Alien Enemies Act does not apply in this context, citing the absence of an invasion and the illegality of targeting individuals without due process.

Leah Litman [54:04]:
"The decision also held that the government can't apply the proclamation to anyone in Colorado without 21 days notice and opportunity to file a lawsuit."

Federal Government’s Position:

Despite judicial setbacks, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to push for aggressive deportation measures, often undermining court orders through procedural loopholes.

Kate Shaw [56:31]:
"It's the most insane kind of formalism. And because this court has done that kind of formalism before, it scares me because it's an awful argument that it's not impossible to see them accepting."

5. Executive Order Targeting the Civil Rights Act

Details of the Order:

The President issued an executive order aimed at eliminating disparate impact liability under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, effectively dismantling legal frameworks that protect against indirect discrimination.

Melissa Murray [73:19]:
"The EO's argument is that disparate impact liability is racist against white people because it... requires individuals and businesses to consider race and engage in racial balancing."

Implications:

This order seeks to weaken the enforcement of civil rights protections by removing the ability to challenge policies that, while not overtly discriminatory, result in unequal outcomes for marginalized groups.

Kate Shaw [74:25]:
"...the president cannot repeal a law by an executive order, but he can direct the Department of Justice not to enforce any disparate impact liability provision."

6. Rising Pronatalism Movement

Special Segment with Emma Amic:

In a dedicated segment, the hosts explore the pronatalism movement, a conservative push to encourage higher birth rates through various incentives and cultural messaging. Emma Amic, a former counsel to Senator Chuck Schumer, joins the discussion to provide expert analysis.

Key Points:

• Goals of Pronatalism:
  The movement aims to increase fertility rates by promoting traditional family structures and restricting reproductive rights, often intertwined with patriarchal ideologies.

• Cultural Impact:
  The pronatalism movement leverages media and political influence to reinforce gender roles, discouraging women's autonomy over reproductive choices and promoting motherhood as a primary purpose.

Emma Amic [78:23]:
"It's about changing the Overton window on how we think about these issues. Birth control, I think, is the best example there."

Connection to Legal Battles:

Pronatalism intersects with ongoing legal efforts to restrict abortion and reproductive healthcare, further entrenching patriarchal control over women's bodies and life choices.

Justice Barrett [87:15]:
"To get women having more babies is not in fact the medals and even making IVF insurance coverage more available... It's about curtailing access to reproductive rights."

7. Other Significant Developments

Additional Cases:

• Parish vs. United States:
  Focuses on the timeliness of appellate notices in cases initially filed late, with the Court siding with the petitioner.

• Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuck:
  Involves complex IRS procedures, though details remain unclear.

• Diamond Alternative Energy LLC vs. EPA:
  Addresses standing and causation in challenges against EPA regulations on vehicle manufacturers.

Executive Branch Actions:

• FBI Director’s Missteps:
  Highlight the politicization within federal agencies, including inappropriate disclosures and arrests targeting judges and platforms like ActBlue.

• Immigration Enforcement Abuses:
  Reports of wrongful deportations, including U.S. citizens, and the administration’s attempts to circumvent judicial orders through minimal procedural compliance.

8. Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The episode underscores a turbulent period in U.S. legal and political landscapes, marked by conservative judicial activism, legislative overreach, and cultural campaigns aimed at reversing progressive advancements in civil and reproductive rights. The hosts emphasize the critical need for public engagement and legal support to counteract these regressive trends.

Leah Litman [95:21]:
"If you want a primer on what's going on there and to see Candace Owens holding a sign that says make him a sandwich, which is apparently the new feminist movement, you can do that."

Notable Quotes:

• Kate Shaw [08:48]:
  "If teachers read books to students that contain ideas that parents find objectionable from the perspective of their religious convictions... a parent can demand that their child be excused from that portion of the instruction."

• Melissa Murray [09:18]:
  "So the schools are likely to revert to whatever curriculum doesn't generate objections so they can just run a single classroom. So less Pride Puppy, more Dick and Jane."

• Justice Alito [19:27]:
  "...this book has a clear message and a lot of people think it's a good message... but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with."

• Justice Barrett [87:15]:
  "The plan to get women having more babies is not in fact the medals and even making IVF insurance coverage more available. It's about curtailing access to reproductive rights."

Final Note:

This episode of Strict Scrutiny offers a comprehensive analysis of significant legal cases and cultural movements shaping the current American socio-political environment. The hosts provide critical perspectives on how judicial decisions and executive actions reflect and influence broader societal values and individual rights.