Search
Generic filters

Supported by:

11 July 2025

Laboratories of Authoritarianism

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause to grant conservative religious parents a constitutional right to remove their children from any classroom where a teacher includes LGBTQAI+ people in the curriculum. In effect, the Court has allowed public schools to discourage mutual tolerance, parents to opt out of Equal Protection, and fringe legal strategists to continue to use children’s constitutional rights as a test case for authoritarianism. In doing so, the erosion of children’s rights becomes the foundation upon which other rights are eroded. Continue reading >>
0
10 July 2025

Silencing Children’s Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Mahmoud v. Taylor on June 27, 2025. In doing so, it dramatically expanded parental rights over students and education without concern for the rights of children or consideration of pedagogy and curriculum. Instead of addressing the plurality of views around sexual orientation and gender, the Court indirectly, but unsubtly, installs a traditional values framework that imposes norms of heterosexuality, religious fundamentalism and parental micromanagement of curriculum. Continue reading >>
0
24 May 2023

Disney v. DeSantis Creates Strange Bedfellows

On April 26, 2023, Disney escalated its public feud with Ron DeSantis, Florida’s current Governor and a 2024 presidential hopeful, by suing him in federal court. The complaint turns on a series of legislative actions DeSantis took in response to Disney's criticism of the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill he championed. The context in which the case has arisen allows the corporation to frame itself a brave defender of LGBTQAI+ rights. In reality though, Disney is no liberal darling and its constitutional complaint opens the door to buttress and expand a conservative reading of several constitutional provisions. Continue reading >>
0
Go to Top