Religion Clause

Monday, August 28, 2023

Sunday, August 27, 2023

Jewish Couple Denied Child Placement Services by United Methodist Agency Have Standing to Sue

In Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services, (Aug. 24, 2023), a Tennessee state appellate court reversed a decision of a special 3-judge trial court (see prior posting) and held that a Jewish couple who allege religious discrimination by a state-subsidized United Methodist child-placement agency have standing to sue. The agency refused to provide the couple with foster care training and a home study because the couple did not share the agency's religious beliefs. A Tennessee statute protects faith-based agencies that refuse to participate in placing a child because of the agency's religious or moral convictions. Subsequently the Department of Children's Services provided the couple directly with the training required. The court said in part:

In the present case, the allegations of the complaint assert that the Couple has been denied and are being denied equal access to stated-funded foster and adoption services because of their Jewish faith. In finding that the Couple lacked standing, the three-judge panel again emphasized that the State was providing the Couple with child placement services. However, when the state makes it more difficult for members of one group than for members of another group to obtain services, the injury in fact “is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit.” ...

When a statute subjects a group of people to unequal treatment based upon their religious beliefs, the fact that the statute may allow discrimination against other religious groups does not negate a disfavored group’s standing to challenge the statute....

The court also concluded that six other Tennessee taxpayers who were co-plaintiffs have taxpayer standing to sue. AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Friday, August 25, 2023

West Virginia's Ban on Prescribing Mifepristone By Telemedicine Is Pre-Empted By FDA Rules

In GenBioPro, Inc. v. Sorsaia,, (D WV, Aug. 24, 2023), a West Virginia federal district court dismissed a challenge to West Virginia abortion restrictions that are no longer in effect. The restrictions will go back into effect only if provisions of the more recent Unborn Child Protection Act (UCPA) are held unconstitutional. The court held that neither federal statutes nor FDA rules pre-empt state restrictions on when abortions may be performed. However, the court refused to rule further on the UCPA provisions, saying in part:

[T]he Court has not found that the UCPA is unconstitutional. As none of these prior restrictions are currently in effect, this Court may not issue an advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of a law not presently operative.

The court also rejected arguments that state restrictions on the sale of mifepristone violate the Commerce Clause, saying in part:

[T]he Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals have repeatedly affirmed that morality-based product bans do not intrinsically offend the dormant Commerce Clause.

However the court did find that West Virginia's ban on prescribing mifepristone by telemedicine, which is still in effect, is pre-empted by FDA rules allowing telemedicine prescriptions for the drug. The Hill reports on the decision.

Religious or Parental Rights Not Violated By School Classroom Discussion of LGBTQ-Themed Books

In Mahmoud v. McKnight, (D MD, Aug. 24, 2023), a Maryland federal district court refused to issue an injunction to allow parents to opt their public-school children out of classroom reading and discussion of books with LGBTQ themes. Parents claim that the books' messages violate parents' sincerely held religious beliefs. The court said in part:

In essence, the plaintiffs argue that by being forced to read and discuss the storybooks, their children will be pressured to change their religious views on human sexuality, gender, and marriage. The Court interprets this argument as an indoctrination claim....

The plaintiffs have not identified any case recognizing a free exercise violation based on indoctrination....

Here, the plaintiffs have not shown that the no-opt-out policy likely will result in the indoctrination of their children....

Separate from any indoctrination claim, Mahmoud and Barakat contend their son would be forced to violate Islam’s prohibition of “prying into others’ private lives” and its discouragement of “public disclosure of sexual behavior” if his teacher were to ask him to discuss “romantic relationships or sexuality.”... Forcing a child to discuss topics that his religion prohibits him from discussing goes beyond the mere exposure to ideas that conflict with religious beliefs. But nothing in the current record suggests the child will be required to share such private information. Based on the evidence of how teachers will use the books, it appears discussion will focus on the characters, not on the students.....

The parents assert that their children’s exposure to the storybooks, including discussion about the characters, storyline, and themes, will substantially interfere with their sacred obligations to raise their children in their faiths.... [T]he parents’ inability to opt their children out of reading and discussion of the storybooks does not coerce them into violating their religious beliefs.... The parents still may instruct their children on their religious beliefs regarding sexuality, marriage, and gender, and each family may place contrary views in its religious context. No government action prevents the parents from freely discussing the topics raised in the storybooks with their children or teaching their children as they wish.

In a press release on the decision, Becket Fund announced that the case will be appealed to the 4th Circuit.

Human Resources Employee Sues Seeking Religious Accommodation to Avoid DEI Participation

A lawsuit was filed last month in a California federal district court by Courtney Rogers, a former human resources employee of a multinational food service company, who was fired after she objected to taking part in the company's DEI program, captioned Operation Equity. Rogers sought a religious accommodation because Operation Equity violates her religious and moral beliefs. The program offers special training and mentorship to women and people of color. The complaint (full text) in Rogers v. COMPASS Group USA, Inc., (SD CA, filed 7/24/2023), alleged in part:

59. ROGERS has sincerely held religious beliefs, based on deeply and sincerely held religious, moral, and ethical convictions, that people should not be discriminated against because of their race.

60. ROGERS’s religious beliefs conflicted with the job’s requirements because she was required to work on implementing something COMPASS called “Operation Equity,” an employment program designed to exclude white males from opportunities for training, mentorship and promotion.

Rogers had proposed swapping 2 to 3 hours per week of her duties with another employee, but the company refused to discuss an accommodation. The complaint alleges violations of Title VII and various provisions of California law. She seeks damages and reinstatement. SHRM reports on the lawsuit.

Thursday, August 24, 2023

South Carolina Supreme Court Upholds Heartbeat Abortion Ban

In Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. State of South Carolina, (SC Sup. Ct., Aug. 23, 2023), the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the 2023 version of South Carolina's heartbeat abortion ban enacted in response to an earlier decision by the same court striking down an earlier version of the law. The court said in part:

[T]he legislature has found that the State has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of unborn children. That finding is indisputable and one we must respect. The legislature has further determined, after vigorous debate and compromise, that its interest in protecting the unborn becomes actionable upon the detection of a fetal heartbeat via ultrasound by qualified medical personnel. It would be a rogue imposition of will by the judiciary for us to say that the legislature's determination is unreasonable as a matter of law—particularly on the record before us and in the specific context of a claim arising under the privacy provision in article I, section 10 of our state constitution.

As a result, our judicial role in this facial challenge to the 2023 Act has come to an end. The judiciary's role is to exercise our judgment as to whether the legislative weighing of competing interests was within the range of possible, reasonable choices rationally related to promoting the legislature's legitimate interests. Having concluded that it was, we consequently defer to the legislature's gauging of the profound, competing interests at stake. Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction and hold the 2023 Act is constitutional.

Justice Few filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Ultimately, the General Assembly did not attempt to simply re-enact the same legislation, as Planned Parenthood argues. Rather, it amended the 2021 Act in what appears to be a sincere attempt to comply with the narrowest reading of this Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood I. The question now before the Court, therefore, is whether the attempt was successful; do the changes the General Assembly made from the 2021 Act to the 2023 Act make it possible for this Court to find the 2023 Act constitutional under article I, section 10, despite the fact the threshold for banning most abortions did not change....

When this Court evaluated the constitutionality of the 2021 Act, we balanced the State's interest in protecting unborn life against the statutory countervailing interest of "informed choice" and the privacy interests arising from article I, section 10. As there is no "informed choice" provision in the 2023 Act, the State's interest in protecting unborn life is now balanced against only the constitutional privacy interests.

Chief Justice Beatty filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In my view, because the material terms of the 2023 Act have not changed from the 2021 Act, logic and respect for the doctrine of stare decisis dictate that the 2023 Act should likewise be declared unconstitutional.

AP reports on the decision.

Statute of Limitations Not Tolled on Navy Chaplains' Claims

In In re: Naval Chaplaincy, (D DC, Aug. 23, 2023), the D.C. federal district court held that plaintiffs have not shown that the running of the statute of limitations on their free exercise claims should be tolled because of fraudulent concealment. In the case, which has been in litigation for nearly 25 years, non-liturgical Protestant chaplains alleged discrimination against them by selection boards that control promotions and early retirements of Navy chaplains. (See prior posting.)

Wednesday, August 23, 2023

Church Autonomy Bars Court Adjudicating Dispute Over Withdrawal from Parent Body

In Deutsche Evangelisch Lutherische Zions Gemeinde v. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, (Kings Cty NY Sup. Ct., Aug. 16, 2023), a New York state trial court dismissed a suit brought by a German Lutheran church in Brooklyn that claims it has broken away from its parent bodies, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and ELCA's Metropolitan New York Synod over the parent bodies' stance accepting same-sex marriage and ordination of gay clergy. The parent bodies claim that the church is still affiliated with them. Plaintiff asks the court to determine that its membership with the parent bodies has been terminated and that the parent bodies lack authority to take control of church property. It also alleges in defamation claims that false statements about its affiliation injure its reputation and dissuade new members from joining. In rejecting those claims, the court said in part:

... [T]he neutral principles of law approach cannot be applied to adjudicate plaintiff's property claims which directly call into question the authority that has been vested in the synod to impose synodical administration which would allow it to dissolve the church and take control over its property....

The MNYS's power to impose synodical administration is far broader, however, than its authority to take control over a local church's property.... Plaintiff's argument ... ignores the inherent religious elements.... [T]he decision to impose synodical administration over a church involves consideration by the Synod of such issues as church governance, religious doctrine and practice, scripture, and the spiritual well-being of the local church's remaining members. Thus, it concerns subject matter with which this court is forbidden from entangling itself pursuant to the First Amendment. Indeed, synodical administration is an inherently religious matter although it incidentally concerns a local church's property.....

In order to resolve the dispute of whether plaintiff terminated its membership with defendants, this court would necessarily intrude into areas of church polity, religious doctrine, practice, and scripture in order to force the Synod to accept the votes taken by plaintiff's congregation in 2008 and 2009 to terminate the relationship. Whether plaintiff remains a member church of the ELCA and the MNYS is more than just a mere associational question but a religious one.

Tuesday, August 22, 2023

San Francisco Archdiocese Files for Bankruptcy Reorganization

In a press release yesterday, the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco announced that it has filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Reorganization. According to the press release:

The filing is necessary to manage and resolve the more than 500 lawsuits alleging child sexual abuse brought against RCASF under California Assembly Bill 218, which allowed decades-old claims to be filed by December 31, 2022, that otherwise were time barred....

The 88 parishes within the Archdiocese are independently managed and self-financed and, along with their parochial schools, are not included in the filing. The Real Property Support Corporation, Capital Asset Support Corporation, high schools, Catholic cemeteries, St Patrick’s Seminary & University, and Catholic Charities associated with RCASF also are not included in the filing and will continue to operate as usual.

KEYT News reports on the filing and reactions to it.

5th Circuit En Banc Expands Its Interpretation of Title VII

In Hamilton v. Dallas County, (5th Cir., Aug. 18, 2023), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of appeals in an en banc decision overturned the Circuit's previous precedent that held employment discrimination violates Title VII only if the discrimination involved an ultimate employment decision such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting or compensating. In this case, the Dallas County Sheriff's Department gave its detention service officers two days off each week. However, only men could choose to take two weekend days; women officers could only have one weekend day and one weekday, or two weekdays. The majority said in part:

Nowhere does Title VII say, explicitly or implicitly, that employment discrimination is lawful if limited to non-ultimate employment decisions. To be sure, the statute prohibits discrimination in ultimate employment decisions—“hir[ing],” “refus[ing] to hire,” “discharg[ing],” and “compensation”—but it also makes it unlawful for an employer “otherwise to discriminate against” an employee “with respect to [her] terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

Our ultimate-employment-decision test ignores this key language.

While the decision relates to a sex discrimination claim, the holding applies equally to religious discrimination.

Judge Ho filed a concurring opinion.

Judge Jones, joined by Judges Smith and Oldham concurred only in the judgment, saying in part:

The majority's incomplete ruling ... leaves the bench, bar, and employers and employees with no clue as to what this court will finally declare to be the minimum standard for Title VII liability....

... [A]s the majority recognizes, the Supreme Court emphasizes that Title VII does not effectuate a workplace “general civility code.”...Yet as written, the majority opinion has no baseline for “discrimination” based on terms or conditions of employment.

Court Preliminarily Enjoins Georgia's Ban on Hormone Therapy for Transgender Minors

In Koe v. Noggle, (ND GA, Aug. 20, 2023), a Georgia federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Georgia's ban on hormone replacement therapy for treatment of gender dysphoria in minors. The court said in part:

... SB 140 is subject to intermediate scrutiny both because it classifies on the basis of natal sex ... Adams, and because it places a special burden on nonconformity with sex stereotypes....

First, the preliminary record evidence of the medical risks and benefits of hormone therapy shows that a broad ban on the treatment is not substantially likely to serve the state’s interest in protecting children....

... [I]t should be recalled that the question put to the Court is not what the correct course of treatment is for an adolescent with gender dysphoria. The question is whether Georgia has shown an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the challenged legislative scheme—a scheme that prohibits clinicians and parents from determining the correct course of treatment on an individualized basis, and which does so in a sex-based manner in that it imposes this prohibition only when it comes to “hormone replacement therapy” as a treatment for gender dysphoric youth....

... Defendants’ position that the quality of the existing evidence supporting hormone therapy justifies a ban of that therapy is not persuasive.

The court's decision was handed down one day before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Georgia) issued an opinion vacating a preliminary injunction against Alabama's ban on hormone treatment for minors with gender dysphoria. (See prior posting.) The Hill reports on the decision.

Illinois Regulation of Limited Purpose Pregnancy Centers Violates 1st Amendment

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Raoul, (ND IL, Aug. 4, 2023), an Illinois federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Illinois SB 1909 which amends the state Consumer Fraud Act to prohibit limited purpose pregnancy centers from using misrepresentations or concealment to interfere with a person's access to abortion or emergency contraception. the court said in part:

SB 1909 is content based discrimination. The subject of the prohibited speech is not just abortion but speech that emphasizes the negative effects of abortion. What's more, there is ample evidence in the record before the Court at this time that SB 1909 was adopted because of Defendant Raoul's disagreement about the content of Plaintiffs' speech. The message of Plaintiffs' speech is subject to prohibition under SB 1909 but abortion providers' speech is specifically excluded from being sanctioned under the Consumer Fraud Act.

1st Amendment Requires Exemption from Anti-Bias Law for Business That Discriminates Against Same-Sex Weddings

In Country Mill Farms, LLC v. City of East Lansing, (ED MI, Aug. 21, 2023), a Michigan federal district court held that the city of East Lansing violated the Free Exercise rights of Country Mill Farms and its owner when the city refused to invite Country Mill to be a vendor at East Lansing's Farmer's Market. The refusal was based on Country Mill's violation of the city's anti-discrimination ordinance in another part of Country Mill's business. Country Mill rents out a portion of its farm property for weddings, but for religious reason will not rent it out for same-sex weddings. The court held that the discrimination ban was not generally applicable because of exemptions in the anti-discrimination ordinance that would allow the city to do business with firms that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The court concluded in part:

In light of the nondiscretionary and the discretionary exemptions in the ordinance, the City has not demonstrated a compelling interest in excluding Plaintiffs from the Farmer’s Market. The City’s nondiscrimination ordinance tolerates the same discrimination in other situations.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Monday, August 21, 2023

11th Circuit: No Constitutional Right to Treat Minors with Gender Transition Medications

In Eknes-Tucker v. Governor of Alabama, (11th Cir., Aug. 21, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a district court's preliminary injunction against Alabama's ban on hormone blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat minors with gender dysphoria. The court said in part:

On review, we hold that the district court abused its discretion in issuing this preliminary injunction because it applied the wrong standard of scrutiny. The plaintiffs have not presented any authority that supports the existence of a constitutional right to “treat [one’s] children with transitioning medications subject to medically accepted standards.” Nor have they shown that section 4(a)(1)–(3) classifies on the basis of sex or any other protected characteristic. Accordingly, section 4(a)(1)–(3) is subject only to rational basis review. Because the district court erred by reviewing the statute under a heightened standard of scrutiny, its determination that the plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits cannot stand.

Judge Brasher filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

[E]ven if the statute did discriminate based on sex, I think it is likely to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. If Alabama’s statute involves a sex-based classification that triggers heightened scrutiny, it does so because it is otherwise impossible to regulate these drugs differently when they are prescribed as a treatment for gender dysphoria than when they are prescribed for other purposes. As long as the state has a substantial justification for regulating differently the use of puberty blockers and hormones for different purposes, then I think this law satisfies intermediate scrutiny.

AL.com reports on the decision.

Enforcing Agreement To Cooperate With Jewish Religious Court Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Satz v. Satz, (NJ Super., Aug. 18, 2023), a New Jersey state appellate court upheld a trial court's order enforcing a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that the parties had entered in connection with their divorce proceedings. One provision in the agreement obligated the parties to comply with recommendations of a Jewish religious court (beis din) regarding the husband giving a get (Jewish bill of divorce) to the wife. According to the court:

On July 6, 2022, the beis din issued a fifteen-page ruling finding that defendant had not properly responded to summonses from rabbinical courts, that defendant is "obligated to divorce [plaintiff] forthright and immediately," and that his refusal to provide plaintiff a get "is a form of abuse."

Affirming the trial court, the appellate court rejected the husband's Establishment Clause challenge, saying in part:

In this case ... the trial court was asked to enforce a civil contract, not a religious one. Nor did the trial court substantively review or affirm the beis din ruling. For purposes of this appeal, the beis din ruling is essentially a report confirming plaintiff's assertion that defendant failed to participate in the beis din proceeding in violation of his obligations under the MSA....

Defendant agreed in the MSA to abide by the beis din ruling, whatever that might be. In enforcing that agreement, the trial court in no way interpreted religious doctrine. The orders entered in this case scrupulously avoid entanglement with religion because the trial court applied well-established principles of civil contract law, not rabbinical law. The latter body of law remained solely within the province of the beis din and was not interpreted or applied by the Family Part judge, nor by us.

Friday, August 18, 2023

9th Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Idaho's Ban on Transgender Women in School Sports

In Hecox v. Little, (9th Cir., Aug. 17, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction issued by the district court barring enforcement of Idaho's ban on transgender women participating on women's sports teams. The ban applies to public primary and secondary schools and public colleges, as well as to other schools that compete against public schools or colleges. The Act also creates a procedure for disputing the sex of a member of a women's team. The court said in part:

The district court did not err in concluding that heightened scrutiny applies because the Act discriminates against transgender women by categorically excluding them from female sports, as well as on the basis of sex by subjecting all female athletes, but no male athletes, to invasive sex verification procedures to implement that policy....

... [T]he Act sweeps much more broadly than simply excluding transgender women who have gone through “endogenous puberty.” The Act’s categorical ban includes transgender students who are young girls in elementary school or even kindergarten. Other transgender women take puberty blockers and never experience endogenous puberty, yet the Act indiscriminately bars them from participation in women’s student athletics, regardless of their testosterone levels....

Second, as the district court found, there was very little anecdotal evidence at the time of the Act’s passage that transgender women had displaced or were displacing cisgender women in sports or scholarships or like opportunities....

We must “reject measures that classify unnecessarily and overbroadly by gender when more accurate and impartial lines can be drawn.”...

We agree with the district court that, contrary to the Act’s express purpose of ensuring women’s equality and opportunities in sports, the sex dispute verification process likely will discourage the participation of Idaho female students in student athletics by allowing any person to dispute their gender and then subjecting them to unnecessary medical testing and genital inspections. Because the Act’s means undermine its purported objectives and impose an unjustifiable burden on all female athletes in Idaho, the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the sex verification provision likely would not survive heightened scrutiny....

Judge Christen dissented in part, contending that the verification procedure discriminates on the basis of the team an athlete chooses to join, not on the basis of sex. She also contends that the trial court's injunction is not sufficiently specific or sufficiently tailored. UPI reports on the decision.

Catholic Schools Sue Over Rules for Inclusion in Colorado's Universal Preschool Funding

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court by the Catholic Archdiocese of Denver and two Catholic schools challenging the restrictions imposed on participation in Colorado's universal preschool funding program. The complaint (full text) in St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, (D CO, filed 8/16/2023) alleges that plaintiffs' free exercise and free speech rights were infringed by conditions that did not allow giving preference to Catholic families. Rules did allow preference for members of the church's congregation, but not for a broader religious preference. The complaint also alleged that the program's non-discrimination requirements prevent Catholic schools from requiring teachers. administrators and staff to abide by Catholic teachings on marriage, gender and sexuality; from considering whether a student or family has identified as LGBTQ; and from assigning dress requirements, pronoun usage and restroom use on the basis of biological sex. Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Challenge To Maine's Elimination of Religious Exemption To School Vaccination Mandate May Move Ahead

Fox v. Makin, (D ME, Aug. 16, 2023), is a challenge to the Maine legislature's removal of religious exemptions from the state's school vaccination requirements. Plaintiffs' son was denied a religious exemption by the principal and vice-principal of the son's school at the direction of the state commissioner of education. In the case, a Maine federal district court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Commissioner, principal and vice-principal. The court held that plaintiffs' free exercise claim was subject to strict scrutiny, finding that the vaccination law lacked general applicability. The court said in part:

Maine continues to permit multiple non-religious exemptions, including a 90-day grace period for non-religious students, a medical exemption, and the IEP sunset provision, all of which arguably undermine its student health and safety interests while restricting religious exemptions that may pose comparable risks....

The Court finds it plausible that section 6355 is not narrowly tailored to advance Maine’s interests.

The court also found that defendants had qualified immunity from damage claims, saying in part:

... [I]t was not clearly established during the period alleged in the Amended Complaint that failing to permit a religious exemption to mandatory school vaccination (while providing others certain non-religious exemptions) violates religious objectors’ constitutional rights. Thus, even if the Court were to assume – without deciding – that section 6355 is unconstitutional, it would be “unfair to subject” the Commissioner and the individual School Defendants “to money damages for picking the losing side of the controversy” by complying with section 6355....

North Carolina Legislature Overrides 3 Vetoes Relating To Transgender Youth and To Parental Rights

On Wednesday, the North Carolina legislature overrode Governor Roy Cooper's vetoes of three bills. House Bill 808 (full text) (veto message) (override vote) prohibits medical professionals from performing gender transition surgery on minors or prescribing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to minors. It also creates a cause of action for damages for minors who suffer physical, psychological, emotional, or physiological harm from such procedures or medication and allows minors to bring such actions up until they are 43 years old or 4 years after discovery of the injury and its cause, whichever is later.

House Bill 574 (full text) (veto message) (override vote) bars transgender women from middle school, high school and college athletic teams. The ban applies to all middle and high schools (specifically including church and religious schools) that are members of an organization that administers interscholastic athletic activities. Private church or religious schools that are not members of such an organization must comply with the ban in any game in which it is playing against a team that is a member. At the college level (public or private) the ban applies to all teams that are part of an intercollegiate athletic program. The law also creates a cause of action for any student who is deprived of an athletic opportunity or who is injured or likely to be injured by a violation of the Act. It also creates a cause of action for any student who is subject to retaliation for reporting a violation or any institution or employee harmed for complying with the law.

Senate Bill 49 (full text) (veto message) (override vote), labeled the "Parents' Bill of Rights", has broad provisions giving parents the right to direct the education, upbringing, moral or religious training and health care decisions of their children. It gives parents the right to seek medical or religious exemptions from immunization requirements and to withhold consent to reproductive health and safety education programs. It gives parents the right to access medical records of their children and to ban biometric scans, DNA storage or certain voice and video recordings of their children. It requires (with law enforcement exceptions) parental notification by the state of any suspected criminal offense against their children. It allows parents to review records of materials their children have borrowed from a school library.

The law includes extensive provisions on parental involvement in their children's public school education. Parents must be given information about a broad range of items relating to student progress, including "the course of study, textbooks, and other supplementary instructional materials for his or her child and the policies for inspection and review of those materials." The law requires procedures to notify parents of student physical and mental health, including advance notification of any name or pronoun changes used for the student.

The law also provides:

Instruction on gender identity, sexual activity, or sexuality shall not be included in the curriculum provided in grades kindergarten through fourth grade, regardless of whether the information is provided by school personnel or third parties.

CNN reports on the new laws.