A (0:04)

It's Wednesday, January 7th, 2026. I'm Albert Mueller, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. The rights of parents in raising their children should be recognized as paramount. As Christians think about this, we need to understand this is basic to creation order. That is to say, in the order of creation. We have the creation of human beings, male and female. Then we have the institution of marriage, the command be fruitful and multip and fill the earth. And then we have the institution of the family, which means that couple primarily, and the children who are given to their union. Now, there's more to the family than that. There's extended family. But the very center, the nuclear cell that defines human civilization, begins with parents and their children. And the recognition of any sane society is that parents have to be recognized as the primary decision makers, authorities. They are, after all, the ones who parent the children. Now, when looking at this, we recognize that in our secularizing, liberalizing society, and especially with the influence of so much progressivist ideology in the culture, there are those who think differently. And one of the authorities that thinks quite differently is the state of California. The state of California has in some ways basically declared war on parents in that state. And one of the ways they've done so is, is by establishing policies that require public school teachers to hide a child's gender identity at school, even from the child's parents. Now, when you think about that, it's hard to imagine anything more basic, anything more basically irrational and wrong than that. And that's why a recent court action should have our attention, and frankly, the attention of parents everywhere and Christians everywhere. In this case, the Judge is a U.S. district Court judge, Judge Roger Benitez there in California, and he handed down a ruling at the end of December saying that parents have a right to know what is going on with their children, and public school teachers can't be put in the position of hiding that information from parents or even lying to parents, misrepresenting reality to parents, if indeed one of the children of that parent or those two parents, if one of those children is presenting in a different way in terms of gender identity, and that includes pronouns, name, dress, you just go down the list at school. Parents, According to this U.S. district Court judge, must be told. Behind that is also the fact that public school teachers are not, according to this judge, to be put in the position of lying or misrepresenting the reality of what's going on with children in their classroom when dealing with, with the parents of those children. The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal released a statement on the 4th of January that said, quote, do parents have a right not to be lied to by a government school if their child starts undertaking a gender transition? That's now a live legal dispute. And over the holidays, a federal judge took the side of parents in a case from California. His ruling was stayed for now by the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But one of these cases could make it to the Supreme Court, end quote. So let's just talk about the legal timeline here. This was a federal district court judge who handed down this decision, A very righteous decision, an absolutely necessary decision recognizing parental authority and parental rights. The 9th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals put that on hold, which is to say just issued a stay. That doesn't mean that's the final word, but it does mean that that likely appeals will eventually get to the U.S. supreme Court. This is one of those cases that almost assuredly will arrive at the Supreme Court. And because of the conservative redirection of that court over the course of the last generation, there's at least a good hope that the majority of justices of the US Supreme Court will see through this issue and understand it for exactly what it is. I'm continuing here to quote from the Wall Street Journal editorial board statement, quote, the ruling quotes a court declaration by an anonymous father describing a series of school meetings about his daughter. Quote, my wife asked each teacher simply if there was anything about her that means the student that the teacher felt was important for us to know. Although at least two of the teachers seemed distinctly uncomfortable, one by acting defensive and rude, and the other by appearing nervous, every teacher answered no. Now get this. Here's the next paragraph. Quote. Yet one class seating chart showed the use of a male name and pronouns. For our daughter, said the father, quote, the parents went to the principal, who, to quote again, denied any knowledge of the social transition and even denied that it was really happening. But the principal stated that if a child asked to be referred to using a new name and pronouns, and to keep this information from parents in the authorities, word, quote, we are instructed to protect the rights of LGBTQ students, end quote. Now, these are among the most chilling words I think any person could hear who has any concern for the family, for marriage, for children, for parental authority, for creation order, you name it. We're talking here about a direct subversion of creation order, even at the level of male and female. We're talking about the public schools taking on an adversarial relationship to parents in the state of California, basically saying that School authorities may know that the child is presenting in a different gender at school than at home. The school can know, but the parents cannot. And the school cannot legally. Teachers cannot legally communicate this to parents. Now, this is a world turned upside down, but that's exactly where things have to go, because this is one of those issues in which there's really no halfway position. Either the child has the absolute right to do this, and that means absolutely without interference from anyone, including parents, or. Or the child does not have such a right. And of course, this gets back to the fact there's really no halfway house. There's really no moderate position on the entire transgender question. You either believe that gender and sex, that is to say, biological sex and gender identity can be different, and thus the gender identity is going to trump biological sex. You either believe that or you don't. This is a categorical. There's really no in between position. And when it comes to the subversion of parental rights, let me just say this kind of thing has been seen happening in Europe and expanding throughout much of Europe over the course of the last, say, half century. But to see this happen in the United States of America, I think even if you were to explain this out loud a matter of just say, 20 or 30 years ago, most people would believe this is some kind of science fiction or some kind of right wing conspiracy theory. But this is the actuality. And if you want all the evidence, then just go look at the ruling handed down by Judge Benitez. And by the way, a link to that will be provided for today's edition of the briefing. You'll find it very encouraging to know that a US Federal district court judge thinks so sanely and so reasonably. He begins by citing Horace mann from the 1840s. Quote, the history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their primary role of parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition. End quote. Now, Horace Mann was no conservative even in the 1840s, but the point is that when you have a US federal district court judge begin his ruling with that kind of quotation, let's just say that's encouraging it. Also, let's put it the opposite way. It would be an absolute disaster if he were to begin anywhere else. Judge Benitez went right at the policies there in California. Quote, these parental exclusion policies are designed to create a zone of secrecy around a school student who expresses gender incongruity. The policies restrain public school teachers and staff from Informing parents about a child's unusual gender expression unless the child consents. The policies. I'm reading from the statement here. The policies apply to children as young as 2 and as old as 17. Let's just stop there for a moment. Children as young as two. Once again, we just see there is no middle ground here. The reason there is an upper limit of 17 is because at 18, that young person would reach legal majority, that is to say, would be recognized legally as an adult. Parental rights would, in this situation, not be so clear. I go back to the statement, quote. The policies do not permit teachers to use their own judgment in responding to an inquiring parent unless the child consents. The teacher who communicates about a child's gender incongruity faces adverse employment action, end quote. In other words, being penalized or fired. I go back to the statement, quote. However, prohibiting accurate answers to a parent's question is, as the plaintiff class asserts, a violation of several federal constitutional rights. In particular, the parents subclass. That means the group of parents bringing the suit asserts rights under the first and 14th Amendments, while the teacher subclass, also appealing against this law, quote, asserts rights under the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment, end quote. I wanted you to hear all of that directly from the text, even as the judge is quoting directly from the documentation related to the case, so you would see how real this danger is and, frankly, how clear the intention of the California authorities has been here. It's a clear intention not only to further the LGBTQ movement, and in particular in this case, the transgender movement and ideology, but to hide even the most basic questions related to an individual child from that child's parents, even to the point of blatant dishonesty. Now, the transgender issue is really not a factor in the Soviet Union before the fall of that horrifying communist experiment in the early decades of the 1990s. The fact is, however, that this is exactly the kind of subversion of parental rights that was very common in the communist world under the Soviet regime and elsewhere. What you have here is the trampling of parental rights in the name of the state. The state is claiming to act on behalf of the children. And so once you begin to think this way, the state can basically take the child as its own, can make these decisions, and even lie to the parents, can subvert the parental relationship, and basically put parents not only only in the dark, but frankly, as much as possible, out of the picture. Now, just to be clear, in the history of the constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court of the United States in terms of American history. The judgment of the high court has been very clear, as is stated in this document, quote, the Supreme Court has long recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. End quote. Care, custody, and control. Now, clearly, that statement was also written long before there was any understanding of the imagination of the transgender agenda. But now it's a very real and present danger. And we understand something else. As Christians, we have to put two and two together and get four here. And that is, we have to think in worldview terms, going back to creation, order, and understanding that if you are going to deny something as basic as the creation order of human beings made male and female, if you're going to subvert something as basic as the family and in this case, parental rights, then you won't do so by inches, you will do so by yards. You're going to have to press this case all the way to the point in which it becomes illegal and a fireable offense for a public school teacher even to tell the parents the truth about how the parent's child is presenting in terms of gender in the classroom during the school day. This is not science fiction. This is California fact. The Judge's document is 52 pages long. I want to turn to page 22. You'll find this very interesting. Judge Benitez writes, quote, the constitutional question is really not whether expressing gender incongruence is pathological or healthy or whether social transitioning is or is not a medical procedure. He says that debate is a red herring. The constitutional question is about when gender incongruence is observed, whether parents have a right to be informed and make the decision about whether further professional investigation or therapy is needed. Put another way, said the judge, the question is whether being involved in potentially serious medical or psychological decision making for their school student is a parent's constitutional right. His next sentence is amazingly, blessedly short. Two words. It is. Period. So, thankfully, in this judge's ruling, we have a spectacularly clear affirmation of parental rights. Again, asking if parental rights apply in this situation. Well, they do. If that's the issue presenting in this case, as the judge says it is, it's a thunderous affirmation of parental authority. That's why we need to be concerned, because the 9th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals is. Has put this judge's ruling on hold. That doesn't mean they've reversed it, but it does mean for now, you have this truth declared by this federal district court judge. But it is at this point on hold, that tells you something about how the process works. It tells you what we are up against. And it also tells you about a battle that is to come. We're going to have to watch this case very, very carefully. And I think we can predict right now the issue in this case is not going to stop one way or the other. Either side is not going to be satisfied with Even how the 9th district will rule on this. Eventually this will arrive at the Supreme Court. And I'll predict right now, I believe, a sufficient number of justices that the Supreme Court will take this case. It is a clear constitutional issue. And of course, as Christians, we understand it's more than that. It is a clear creation order issue. We can't sit this one out. Failing in this, losing this battle means that parenthood is itself subverted, fatally so in the state of California. And if it can happen in the state of California, don't think anyone else in the other 49 states is safe. Now, I shift now to a related development. And one of the things you need to watch is that when we have the end of a year, you have the clearing of some of these issues for two reasons. Number one, you have some administrative units, some courts and others who just want to get this kind of thing done, timestamp it 2025 and move on. The other reason is there are some who want to do this kind of thing when the American public is thinking about something else, such as Christmas, New Year's, family and all the rest. That's why another major report, this one appeared in the Atlanta journal constitution on December 25th. So this is Christmas Day. Here's the headline, 19 states sue over Minors, Gender, career. This story originated at the New York Times and the Times tells us, quote, a coalition of 19 states Tuesday, this is the Tuesday before the Thursday, which was Christmas, quote, sued to block the Trump administration's plan to strip federal funding from hospitals providing gender related care for minors, a policy that effectively would shut down any health care providers that failed to comply. Okay, so let's just go back what happened in the closing weeks of 2025. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Announced that the administration was going to cut off federal funding, in particular Medicaid and Medicare payments to hospitals in which there is any major share of hospital revenue from transgender treatments for minors. Quote, this is from the Times. Quote, part of the underpinning of that plan is a declaration by Kennedy that gender related treatments for minors, quote, failed to meet professional recognized standards of health care. Now, what we have here Just to get to the bottom line is 19 states suing because they want to be able to offer their hospitals in those states to be able to offer transgender care to children and teenagers. Understand? 19 states putting themselves on the line. You won't be surprised at the end of this article to read, quote, all of the states have Democratic controlled legislatures, a Democratic governor, or both. In most cases, both. What are the states? Well, you can pretty much imagine the list. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington state, as well as the District of Columbia. Now, that means that if you are a parent, if you're a family in any of those states, this relates to you directly. But it also means because of the fact that this is a federal policy, we're in a federal system. Even those in the other 31 states are still very much engaged here because it's your tax money that would be used in this way if these 19 states, through their attorneys general, are successful. Now, there's something else in this article in Worldview Analysis that really should have our attention, and it's pretty much buried in the article, but it cries out for attention. Listen to this quote. Gender related treatments for minors, which can include puberty blocking drugs, hormone therapies, and in rarer cases, surgeries, have been fiercely debated in other countries, but are endorsed by most medical groups in the United States. End quote. Now, is that true or false? Well, it's true ish or false ish, depending upon how you want to look at it. The point is, it is true to say that these issues have been incredibly controversial among medical authorities elsewhere. But what's not said is that that wasn't always the case. You have a nation like Britain. Britain was going headlong into the endorsement of all these transgender treatments. Gender realignment, gender affirmation, whatever the propagandist term they were using, they were into it big time. The medical authorities were into it big time. There's big money involved, big time. But the cast report that came out, we've talked about it many times on the briefing. The Cass report came out led by one of the most respected pediatricians in the entire United Kingdom. It came back and said there is no proof that these treatments do long term good for young people and children. And there's a good deal of evidence that they could do real harm. And so the professions had to realign immediately to that reality. The big issue here is that that hasn't happened in the United States because most of the medical professional authorities are so liberal and so resistant to this change. Now, that means that federal government policy here is going to be really important. And this is where elections come with consequences. One of the consequences of the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States rather than Kamala Harris. Let's just keep this very much in mind, is that the Trump administration is saying no to the federal funding of these programs, even saying that if this hospital or medical center has any involvement in any major way with these kinds of procedures, then Medicare and Medicaid funding will be cut off. And let's face it, that means effectively those medical centers or hospitals can't operate. So, yes, this has the attention of those very liberal states. It has the attention of those in the liberal professions as well. And you see that this story broke. But again, I just want to point out that it tells you something. You should pay attention to the fact that this story broke in the print edition of the Atlanta Journal Constitution on Christmas Day. That is to say, at a time when few Americans are likely to give much attention to that kind of headline, it's for that very reason we have to give much attention to this headline and the vast worldview issues that are behind it. Once again, the integrity of the family, the integrity of creation, order, parental rights, parental authority, very much right before us for all who have eyes to see. All right. Other related issues we'll be discussing on the briefing in coming days. But I want to go to something you might not have heard about at this point. And that has to do with the judge who's presiding in the legal hearings having to do with now former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. Now, as you know, the former Venezuelan president and his wife have been indicted on numerous federal charges. They were brought forcibly from Caracas to face the court of justice there in New York City. It's a federal court and the federal judge presiding over it is Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. He's pretty well known. He's been around for a long time. That is part of the news you probably haven't heard. Judge Hellerstein, very well known in the legal community, is assigned this case precisely because almost 15 years ago in 2011, he was the federal district court judge there in New York who put his signature on the indictment of Maduro and his wife on criminal narcotics trafficking charges back in 2011. Okay. Just keep that in mind. He was already an old man. Judge Hellerstein, who presided at that hearing just days ago in New York City, is 92 years old. Now, recall that our constitutional order says that federal judges are appointed for Life, which means they can't be required to leave the court because of any particular age. They can stay on if they want to stay on. There's some customary ages in which retirement can take place, benefits can take place. Federal judges can then sign on to be senior judges. They can also take on a rotation role. Very few continue beyond, say, 80 in this case, Judge Hellerstein is 92. Now, one of the reasons that becomes crucial was made clear by Jeffrey Toobin, who is an opinion writer at the New York Times, also a very well known legal scholar and law professor. Well, he addressed an argument in yesterday's edition of the New York Times to Judge Hellerstein, saying that the most important thing he can do in this case is to step aside. Now, this requires us to think for a moment. Why does the U.S. constitution afford federal judges a life term? Why is their term an appointment for life? It is to free them from the threat of political action. If they should hand down a decision or a ruling that would be unpopular, it is at least by intention to depoliticize the federal judiciary. Now, it's still political in the sense that, for example, federal judges take their seats only because they are nominated by a President of the United States. That president is a political figure. He's identified with a political party party, and almost always with a judicial philosophy. It was President Bill Clinton who nominated Judge Hellerstein to the federal bench. He has been there ever since. He has been very involved in some of the biggest cases, including federal prosecutions, cases that followed the 911 attacks going back to the beginning of this century. He's also been involved in some other things, and he has continued to be involved in frontline cases into his 80s and now into his 90s. There have been some complaints about this particular judge, not so much missing a ruling or ruling, an error, but of nodding off during court hearings, particularly in the afternoon. But the process of removing a federal judge in this case, it requires a finding basically of incompetence. And it's very unlikely that Judge Hellerstein would be found incompetent. The reason Jeffrey Toobin wrote this is because he understands that a mistake in this case could be absolutely devastating. He understands also that this case is likely to last not for weeks, not for months, but for years. He points out the fact that even in this first hearing, Judge Hellerstein put off a subsequent hearing for a matter of months simply because of the complexities of this case, even in preparing the filings on both sides. The reality is that any trial in this case, and there should be a trial in this case, it is likely to be months away, if not years away. And time is ticking. And here's the issue that Professor Toobin, Jeffrey Toobin, understands. If there is a necessity of Judge Hellerstein removing himself later in this case or if he should die on the bench, that could create a huge problem for the prosecution in this case. And the stakes are just really high. And so that's why Jeffrey Toobin is calling upon Judge Hellerstein to withdraw, to recuse himself from this case. Not because he can't handle it now, but because he is 92 years of age. Another very interesting thing about this judge is that it was reported at the time that he took the bench. Now, you're talking here about the 1990s. It was reported at that time that he was the first Orthodox Jewish judge to be appointed in this way. And you have a man here who has made his own Jewish understanding, his Jewish convictions very, very clear. Even in some citations and even in his schedule. He has often arranged sentencing hearings for Fridays before sundown so that he can make a ruling and then, as he said, on the Jewish Sabbath, consider the righteousness and justice of his ruling. I have to tell you, looking at this article, you have to respect Judge Hellerstein for his longevity, for his tenacity, not to mention for his work ethic. And it's also important to recognize his identity with Orthodox Judaism. And that just reminds me of numbers 8, 24, 26. In those verses, you will find about the priests who serve that they time out at age 50. Now, I'm not saying that that should apply to federal judges. I'm not saying it should apply to, well, to any of us. But I am saying that at least embedded within that particular text is the understanding that age does come with a certain cost. It comes with benefits. Yes, and the Bible's very clear about the benefit of maturity and wisdom. But at the same time, 92 is 92, and the next number is 93. And they go up from there. It's a sobering reality of our human mortality. So I do respect this judge. I find his track record on the court amazing, his tenacity admirable. But in this case, he could well be putting a most important prosecution on behalf of the US Government. At stake, at risk. That's no small matter, regardless of age. As another observer pointed out, Judge Hellerstein is roughly a decade older than former President Joe Biden. Oy. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmohler.com youm can follow me on x or Twitter by going to x.comalbertmohler for information on the Southern Baptist Theological seminary, go to sbts.edu. for information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com I'm speaking to you from Davenport, Florida and I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing. Sam.