President Trump’s appointment of Linda McMahon as U.S. Secretary of Education sends a single and unmistakable signal – this incoming administration will prioritize the expansion of school choice, and associated parental rights, across the country.
 
Opponents of McMahon’s appointment have already called her credentials into question, pointing to her tenure as CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment as too undignified for a Cabinet secretary, disqualifying for any role that does not involve pointed elbow drops or figure-four leglocks. McMahon’s defenders cite her business acumen – building WWE into a multibillion-dollar powerhouse – as a demonstration that she is a manager and a leader.
 
What the oppositional hand-wringing actually boils down to is a fundamental policy disagreement between the educational establishment and the prospective new leader of the Department of Education. McMahon is an outspoken proponent of parental school choice, having co-founded the America First Policy Institute, in part, to advocate for “putting parents and students – not bureaucrats, unions, or politicians – in charge of educating our Nation’s next generation.”
 
As Protect The 1st has often pointed out, parents’ ability to choose how to educate their children is a fundamental First Amendment right, because it determines whether and to what extent parents will be able to extend their values (including those based on religion or belief) across generations. Parents should be able to freely choose a school that fits their child’s needs and to select an education that reflects their values.
 
It's an overdue blessing, therefore, that support for school choice is on the upswing. Today, according to EdChoice, there are 75 school choice programs operating across 33 states. A full quarter of the states have embraced some form of universal school choice. And in 2023, support for school choice reached 71 percent among voters, with strong majority backing across all political parties and demographics. Conversely, a 2024 Pew Research study shows that more than one-half of Americans say that traditional, public K-12 education is heading in the wrong direction.
 
With McMahon at the helm of the Department of Education against the backdrop of a GOP-led Congress, chances are better than ever that we’ll see passage of the Educational Choice for Children Act. This measure would provide tax credits for charitable contributions to organizations offering school choice scholarships.
 
In the meantime, we’re increasingly likely to see the nation’s second-largest state, Texas, join the broadening coalition fighting for the future of our children. In 2023, 21 Republicans joined 63 Democrats to vote down education savings accounts, a top priority for Gov. Greg Abbott. In 2025, 14 of those members are not returning to Austin, giving the governor an education choice majority in both chambers of the state legislature. 
 
Again, it cannot be emphasized enough that school choice is broadly supported among voters of both parties. November’s GOP sweep likely resulted in some part from the disconnect between Democrats and their constituents over our failing public education system. Democrats, simply put, need to listen to their core constituents, upset about public schools that have failed children for decades.
 
Until Democrats wake up – and PT1st hopes they will – the task of reform is left to elected conservatives. Regardless of party, we need political leaders who understand that the quality education and values we bequeath to our children are among the most important expressions of our core beliefs. McMahon’s nomination is nothing less than a “People’s Elbow” in favor of that proposition.  

​On Wednesday, the House Ways and Means Committee took a big step forward in expanding school choice nationwide by marking up and passing the Educational Choice for Children Act by a vote of 23-16. This is the furthest a school choice measure has ever advanced in Congress. With strong support from the House majority, this bill has a promising chance of passing the Senate next year, potentially becoming a landmark in the movement for educational freedom.
 
The Educational Choice for Children Act aims to provide tax credits for charitable donations to Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs) that support needy children. These scholarships can be used for private or religious schools, homeschooling, and other non-public educational options. The legislation includes express protections for religious schools, ensuring that parents can choose a learning environment consistent with their beliefs without fear of government interference.
 
Notably, the bill includes safeguards to prevent federal, state, or local government entities from exerting control over private or religious schools. It also prohibits discrimination against educational institutions based on their religious character, providing a robust defense of religious freedom in education. This bill advances the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, reinforcing the right of parents and families to freely exercise religious belief.
 
Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) said during the hearing, “The credit will create a new pathway to fund scholarships and open new opportunities for countless families to have a say in where they want to send their children to school and tailor their education to their specific needs.”
 
With a quarter of all states now having comprehensive or universal school choice policies, this movement is spreading across the country like a prairie fire. Protect The 1st has been hard at work alongside allies, coalition partners, and leaders on Capitol Hill to promote this legislation in Washington, D.C., as well as the states. We support the national, bipartisan movement in favor of school choice because the ability to choose a school that aligns with one’s values – whether secular or religious – is one of the most profound expressions of the First Amendment we can make.
 
If passed, the bill would pave the way for millions of students to access better educational opportunities that align with their values and needs. As Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), a key proponent of the bill, declared that school choice is “a civil rights issue,” giving parents the freedom to choose the best education for their children, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
 
With the growing support for school choice, this bill can be a historic step toward expanding educational freedom in the United States. It reflects a commitment to empowering parents and enhancing educational options for all children, reaffirming the importance of the First Amendment in safeguarding individual rights in education.
 
The path forward remains challenging, but the momentum behind this bill is unmistakable.

In a major win for free speech, a federal judge reinstated Maud Maron to the Manhattan Community Education Council 2 after she was removed for speaking against an anonymous student article she deemed antisemitic. Judge Diane Gujarati ruled the regulation used to remove her was unconstitutional, stating, “Securing First Amendment rights is in the public interest.”
 
Maron’s removal followed her public criticism of that anonymous student article that ran in a school publication, which she called antisemitic in an interview with The New York Post. Her comments, made as a concerned parent, drew the ire of Schools Chancellor David Banks, who invoked Chancellor’s Regulation D-210 to justify her ousting. Banks claimed her statements crossed a line, but Judge Gujarati found this regulation itself overstepped constitutional bounds by suppressing free speech.
 
The ruling also overturned another rule that prohibited parents from criticizing the conduct of school officials, affirming their right to speak freely at board meetings and online. Maron, celebrating the decision, declared: “Free speech rights protect parents when they speak up about our children’s education — on matters routine and controversial.”
 
The case highlights how policies like Chancellor's Regulation D-210 have been used to suppress dissent under the guise of maintaining order. Introduced during New York City’s de Blasio administration, these regulations have been criticized as overly broad and punitive toward those challenging the status quo.
 
By ruling in Maron's favor, the court affirmed that parents and community members must be free to discuss and debate educational policies. The decision is a reminder that such discourse is protected by the First Amendment, which allows open discussion on issues impacting children’s education.
 
Maud Maron's case sends a powerful message to school boards and education officials across the country: in America, the right to speak freely, even when the speech is uncomfortable or controversial, is fundamental. For those in authority, the lesson is clear — silencing critics isn’t maintaing order. It’s undemocratic and unconstitutional.

​Sunday is National Parents’ Day, a day to recognize the sacrifices made by the 63 million parents in the United States. Signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, National Parents’ Day could be treated lightly – like so many other legislative honorifics, such as National Wine and Cheese Day (July 25) or National Bagelfest Day (July 26).
 
But Sunday’s observance calls for deeper reflection.
 
The courts, the media, and the culture focus on the responsibilities of parents, which are intense and last for years. In no other relationship is a person so bound by law and custom to see to the nutrition, clothing, education, and care of another person. Fortunately, for most of us, these things and so much more are given freely, even enthusiastically.
 
Many educators and politicians, however, seem to have a growing hostility to the flip side of responsibility – the rights of parents. Parents have many rights, including the right to see that the values they hold dear are the ones their children grow up with. Indeed, the First Amendment guarantees the right of every American – including parents – to expressive activity. And that includes not only what we say, write, post, and support, but also our efforts to perpetuate our values across generations.
 
Thus, for example, public-school parents have the right to support their children in joining the after-school club of their choice, whether it is about science, a film club, art club, or faith. And yet, regarding the latter, parents have twice had to go to federal court to obtain reversals of educators’ efforts, from Washington, D.C., to San Jose, California, to block the students of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes from holding after-school meetings. In the latter case, Judge Kenneth K. Lee of the Ninth Circuit found evidence that educators were emitting a “stench of animus” toward religious belief.
 
This animus is also seen in Montgomery County, Maryland, where Muslim and Christian parents tried and failed in court to be allowed to keep their preschool and elementary students from being taught unnecessarily explicit lessons about sexuality – the mere exposure to which violates their families’ religious beliefs.
 
Of course, parents with purely secular values also have the right to perpetuate their values across generations. Yet they generally face no such discrimination. The stench of animus that Judge Lee found leads instead to the apparent determination of some to run roughshod over parental rights mostly when it comes to religion. There seems a desire by some in the educational establishment to stamp everyone with uniform values, instead of embracing the pluralistic nature of American society.
 
With so many leaders of public education determined to shape children with a cookie cutter of uniformity, parents are increasingly exercising their rights by leaving the system altogether. This rebellion against the cookie cutter has led to a movement in a dozen states to embrace universal school choice. To be sure, private schools in these voucher systems must still adhere to state standards in the teaching of science, math, history, English, and social studies. But school choice leaves room for pluralism, whether the school imparts religious values or not.
 
The rights of parents, and how they intersect with their First Amendment rights, is something to reflect on – and celebrate – this Sunday.

​A recent ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck a severe blow to the cause of parental rights and religious liberty. This contentious case revolved around the Montgomery County Board of Education's controversial decision to deny opt-out requests for certain LGBTQ+ inclusive texts used in K-5 classrooms.
 
As we’ve reported, parents argued that this policy infringed upon their First Amendment rights to shape their children's education regarding sexuality and gender, contending that it forced them into an untenable position: compromise their deeply held religious beliefs or withdraw their children from public education altogether.
 
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, denying the parents' request for a preliminary injunction. The court concluded that the parents failed to demonstrate a substantial burden on their religious exercise, determining that exposure to the inclusive texts did not amount to a violation of their religious rights. The ruling emphasized that the school's curriculum did not compel students to affirm or renounce any beliefs, but merely exposed them to diverse perspectives.
 
Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum issued a strong dissent in this case that should be required reading for anyone in need of a better understanding of the foundational importance of religious liberty.
 
Judge Quattlebaum criticizes the majority for not recognizing the burden placed on parents' religious rights. He asserts that “the board's decision to deny religious opt-outs burdened these parents' right to exercise their religion and direct the religious upbringing of their children by putting them to the choice of either compromising their religious beliefs or foregoing a public education for their children.”
 
A key point in Judge Quattlebaum's dissent is his emphasis on the non-neutrality and lack of general applicability of the board's actions. He argues that the board's decision was not neutral because it selectively imposed a burden on religious practices while accommodating other types of opt-outs, such as for Halloween or Valentine's Day celebrations. He asserts that the board's actions were discriminatory against religious beliefs, which is contrary to the First Amendment's protections. The judge writes:
 
“The policy was neither neutral nor generally applicable because it invited the government ‘to decide which reasons for not complying with the policy are worthy of solicitude’ in its sole discretion.”
 
Judge Quattlebaum also highlights that the parents were not attempting to ban the books but merely sought the ability to opt out. He points out that the school’s guidelines previously allowed for reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs, and the sudden reversal without clear justification exacerbates the burden on religious parents. He finds it problematic that the board changed its policy to no longer permit notice and opt-out options, a move he describes as an unexplained “about-face” that failed to consider the substantial impact on religious families.
 
While the board aims to foster an inclusive environment, Judge Quattlebaum argues that this goal should not come at the expense of fundamental religious rights. As he says:
 
“The board’s refusal to grant the parents’ requests for religious opt-outs to instruction with the books the board required be used to promote diversity and inclusivity to the LGBTQ+ community forces the parents to make a choice – either adhere to their faith or receive a free public education for their children. They cannot do both.”
 
Judge Quattlebaum's dissent stands as a powerful defense of the fundamental right of parents to direct their children's education according to their beliefs.

​Protect The 1st is proud to announce our filing of an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in a pivotal case challenging a law in Michigan that restricts the religious rights of parents.
 
This legal challenge opposes what is known as a Blaine Amendment. This lawsuit is spearheaded by a group of Michigan parents confronting the amendment's prohibition on state aid to private, religiously affiliated schools. They show that it violates the Equal Protection Clause by denying families the opportunity to advocate for the freedom to choose educational options that align with their religious values.
 
The origins of Blaine Amendments are steeped in ugly history marked by discrimination and bigotry. Initially proposed as a federal law in 1875 by House Speaker James G. Blaine, these amendments seek to prevent direct government aid to religiously affiliated educational institutions. They reflect a period of intense anti-Catholic sentiment, targeting the influx of Catholic immigrants and their schools. While the federal amendment failed, many states, including Michigan, adopted similar provisions. Michigan's Blaine Amendment, like those of other states, effectively bars state support for religious schools, impacting those who seek education aligned with their religious beliefs and cultural values.
 
Protect The 1st believes that such amendments are not only a relic of a prejudiced past but continue to infringe on our First Amendment rights today. They undermine the pluralism that is vital to our nation’s educational landscape by restricting access to diverse schooling options that reflect familial and cultural values. This approach runs counter to the essence of American liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which includes the right of parents to direct their children's education.
 
Our brief celebrates the opportunity to challenge Michigan’s outdated and discriminatory Blaine Amendment. By standing with the petitioners, we aim to affirm the importance of educational choice and religious freedom, ensuring that all families have the right to educate their children in a manner consistent with their beliefs. Just five days after the petitioners filed before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court called for a response in this case, a positive sign that the Court is seriously considering granting it cert.
 
Protect The 1st looks forward to further developments in this case.