Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor snapped at each other during Tuesday’s arguments over parental rights in LGBTQ curriculum after the liberal justice attempted to jump back into the questioning as Alito was speaking. 

The short quarrel happened as the high court listened to arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which a coalition of parents sought to solidify the right to be informed about and opt their children out of reading LGBTQ-related material in elementary schools — which they argue conflicts with their faith.

“There is a growing heat to the exchanges between the justices. Sotomayor just tried to disagree with Alito’s portrayal and Alito pushed back and asked to allow him to finish,” Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley observed on X.  

Sotomayor initially asked Mahmoud attorney Eric Baxter about a particular book titled “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” that included a same-sex relationship storyline and whether exposure to same-sex relationships in children’s books could be considered coercion.

PARENTS TELL SCOTUS: LGBTQ STORYBOOKS IN CLASSROOMS CLASH WITH OUR FAITH

“Our parents would object to that,” Baxter responded. 

Sotomayor continued with her line of questioning to further clarify Baxter’s objection to the books. Baxter stated, “Our objections would be even to reading books that violate our client’s religious beliefs.”

Alito then jumped in with additional questions related to the book.

“I’ve read that book as well as a lot of these other books,” Alito began. “Do you think it’s fair to say that all that is done in ‘Uncle Bobby’s Wedding’ is to expose children to the fact that there are men who marry other men?”

Baxter objected to Alito’s question. Alito then said that while the book “has a clear message and a lot of people think it’s a good message,” some with “traditional religious beliefs don’t agree with” it.

As Alito continued with his explanation, Sotomayor jumped in.

“What a minute. The reservation is—” Sotomayor began. 

‘LET US BE THE PARENTS’: SUPREME COURT SHOULD LET PARENTS OPT KIDS OUT OF LGBTQ SCHOOL LESSONS, LAWYER ARGUES

“Can I finish?” Alito said. 

“It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with,” Alito finished.

As arguments wrapped, the Supreme Court appeared inclined to agree with the parents.

A coalition of Jewish, Christian and Muslim parents with elementary school children in Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland brought suit against the school board after it introduced new LGBTQ books into the curriculum as part of the district’s “inclusivity” initiative. 

The curriculum change came after the state of Maryland enacted regulations seeking to promote “educational equity,” according to the petitioner’s brief filed with the high court.

THE SUPREME COURT APPEARS TO SIDE WITH PARENTS IN RELIGIOUS LIBERTY DISPUTE OVER STORYBOOKS

The parents lost both at the district court and the appellate level. The Fourth Circuit held that the parents had not shown how the policy violated the First Amendment.

The case comes at a time when President Donald Trump and his administration have prioritized educational and DEI-related reform upon starting his second term. The Supreme Court has notably also heard oral arguments this past term in other religious liberty and gender-related suits. 

The high court heard oral arguments earlier this month in a suit brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group’s bid for tax relief. The decision could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions. 

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, and David Spunt contributed to this report. 

With President Donald Trump back in the White House and the final rollout of federal REAL ID requirements set to take effect in May, many of the loudest privacy advocates in Washington have been largely silent.

While privacy-minded lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have spent years blasting the Patriot Act, among other measures, few are raising alarms over the Trump administration’s looming implementation of the REAL ID Act — a law passed in 2005 that critics describe as a national identification system.

Some of the privacy-hawk lawmakers remaining silent on REAL ID were very vocal when another expansion of the national security surveillance apparatus came about – the Patriot Act of 2001 – but not so when the U.S. is only days away from REAL ID implementation.

Sens. Edward Markey, D-Mass., Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., were all in Congress when the Patriot Act faced ultimately-successful renewal in 2010s and when the 2020 bill amending and reauthorizing the related Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court came up for a vote.

‘MASS SURVEILLANCE’: CONSERVATIVES SOUND ALARM OVER TRUMP ADMIN’S REAL ID ROLLOUT

“Congress has a duty to safeguard Americans’ privacy, but the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act fails to adequately limit the types of information that the government can collect about Americans, and it fails to adequately limit how long the government can keep the information it collects about us,” Markey said in a 2020 statement objecting to the FISA renewal.

“I am unwilling to grant any president surveillance tools that pose such a high risk to Americans’ civil liberties,” he said.

In 2011, Merkley was one of eight senators who voted to prevent the Patriot Act renewal from even coming to the floor for debate, according to Oregon Live.

His Beaver State colleague, Wyden, ultimately voted to allow debate, but said on the Senate floor during such discourse that it needs to be potentially reconsidered.

WHAT IS REAL ID? DEADLINE APPROACHES FOR NEW IDENTIFICATION CARDS REQUIRED TO FLY DOMESTICALLY

“The Patriot Act was passed a decade ago during a period of understandable fear,” Wyden said at the time.

“Now is the time to revisit this… and ensure that a better job is done of striking that balance between fighting terror and protecting individual liberty.”

Merkley expressed concern at the time about the Patriot Act’s ability to let law enforcement collect many types of personal data like emails and phone records.

In order to get a REAL ID, licensees must provide their Social Security number and other documentation.

While the REAL ID implementation was delayed 20 years by several factors including COVID-19, Merkley cast a “protest vote” at the time of the Patriot Act renewal that a four-year extension of the post-9/11 act was being put forth without sufficient time for debate.

In 2005, Wyden also gave a Senate floor speech opposing the first reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

Markey did not respond to multiple requests for comment, left at his Washington and Boston offices. Merkley also did not respond to a request for comment.

BLUE STATES RALLIED FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO OBTAIN DRIVER’S LICENSES AHEAD OF TRUMP’S REAL ID CRACKDOWN

A representative for Wyden acknowledged Fox News Digital’s comment request, but said the Oregonian was traveling and holding town halls with constituents back home and could not be immediately reached.

On his senatorial webpage, Wyden offered a rundown of all his comprehensive actions in favor of privacy, as well as “le[ading] the fight to address the Intelligence Community’s reliance on secret interpretations of surveillance law.”

“When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry,” he said in 2011.

Wyden was also outraged in 2013 when the NSA was found to be secretly interpreting the act to collect personal data of millions of Americans without a warrant.

In a statement to Fox News Digital on privacy concerns with REAL ID, Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said REAL IDs rightly “make identification harder to forge, thwarting criminals and terrorists.”

“Eighty-one percent of air travelers [already] hold REAL ID-compliant or acceptable IDs,” McLaughlin said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“DHS will continue to collaborate with state, local, and airport authorities to inform the public, facilitate compliance, curb wait times and prevent fraud.”

Fox News also reached out for comment to a bipartisan series of lawmakers who have been party to pro-privacy bills or taken pro-privacy stances in the past, including Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Speaking at the White House Tuesday evening, President Donald Trump blasted courts standing in the way of his administration’s immigration agenda of deporting “some very bad people,” who he said include “killers, murderers, drug dealers.”

The president touted his administration’s progress in shutting down the border and cracking down on illegal immigration, saying, “Honestly, it’s one of the great successes; we have virtually nobody coming in illegally.”

He noted, however, that certain rulings against his deportations pose a threat to his efforts to secure the country.

“I hope we get cooperation from the courts, because, you know, we have thousands of people that are ready to go out, and you can’t have a trial for all of these people,” he said. “It wasn’t meant–the system wasn’t meant–and we don’t think there’s anything that says that.”

KASH PATEL, FBI TOUT $5M REWARD FOR CAPTURING MS-13 ‘TERRORIST LEADER’ UNLEASHING EVIL ON AMERICANS

Since Trump’s return to the Oval Office in January, his administration has faced hundreds of lawsuits targeting his executive orders and actions, some of which have resulted in nationwide injunctions.

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case on May 15 about three federal judges who issued separate nationwide injunctions blocking an executive order by Trump ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. 

On Mar. 15, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a ruling temporarily blocking the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport criminal illegal alien gang members to El Salvador.  

Trump said that court rulings slowing down his deportation agenda could lead to a “very dangerous country.”

GORSUCH, ROBERTS SIDE WITH LEFT-LEANING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IN IMMIGRATION RULING

“We were having hundreds of thousands of people a month come in under Biden, and they came in from prisons. They came in from mental institutions. They came in from gangs in Venezuela and other countries all over the world, not just South America. They were emptying their prisons into the United States, Venezuela emptied its prisons out, but many countries emptied their prisons into the Congo as an example, in Africa, emptied their prisons into the United States,” he said.

“I won an election based on the fact that we get them out,” he went on. “We’re getting them out and a judge can say, ‘No, you have to have a trial’ … the trials going to take two years, and now we’re going to have a very dangerous country if we’re not allowed to do what we’re entitled to do.”

Trump also addressed his administration’s ongoing trade war with China, saying it is up to China to make a deal work.

“Ultimately, they have to make a deal because otherwise they’re not going to be able to deal in the United States,” he said. “And we want them involved but they have to, and other countries have to make a deal. And if they don’t make a deal, we’ll set the deal because we’re the ones that set the deal.”

JD VANCE CHAMPIONS ‘ROADMAP’ TOWARD US-INDIA TRADE DEAL, SAYS PARTNERSHIP CRITICAL TO DETERRING ‘DARK TIME’

The president said he expects that in whichever deal is ultimately reached, the current 145 percent tariff against China will be much lower, but noted it “won’t be zero” either.

“It used to be zero. We were just destroyed. China was taking us for a ride and it’s just not going to happen,” he said. “We’re going to be very good to China, I have a great relationship with President XI. But they would make billions and billions and billions of dollars a year, and they would build their military out of the United States on what they made so that won’t happen.”

“But they’re going to do very well,” he continued. “And I think they’re going to be happy and I think we’re going to live together very happily and ideally work together. So, I think it’s going to work out very well.”

During the Q and A Trump also put to bed rumors that he would be firing Jerome Powell from his role as chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve over a disagreement about lowering interest rates.

‘NO LOVE LOST’: TRUMP IS ‘ONE PERSON’ TO DRAG JEROME POWELL OUT OF OFFICE ‘KICKING AND SCREAMING’ EXPERT SAYS

In response to a question on whether he had any intention to fire Powell, Trump replied, “None whatsoever. Never did.”

“The press runs away with things. No, I have no intention of firing him,” said Trump.

“I would like to see him be a little more active in terms of his idea to lower interest rates,” he noted, adding, “This is a perfect time to lower interest rates. If he doesn’t, is it the end? No, it’s not, but it would be good timing. It would be it which could have taken place earlier. But, no, I have no intention to fire him.”

California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton came out swinging against former Vice President Kamala Harris as she mulls a bid to become Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom’s successor.

“It’s never about us. It’s always about her,” Hilton said about the discussion of a potential run, citing a Politico report that she’s interested in the idea of being the country’s first Black woman governor.

“Let me tell you, leading the greatest state in the greatest nation on Earth is not some consolation prize to be handed out to a failed and rejected machine politician from Washington who can barely string a coherent sentence together and who thinks she should get this job because of her identity but not her ability,” he added.

CALIFORNIA MAYOR WANTS TO GIVE HOMELESS PEOPLE ‘ALL THE FENTANYL THEY WANT’: ‘NEED TO PURGE THESE PEOPLE’

Hilton launched his campaign in Huntington Beach on Tuesday morning, touting endorsements ranging from Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, Rep. Kevin Kiley and actor Jon Voight. 

He joins the race as recent polling indicated that just under half of likely voters in California would consider backing a Republican for governor, according to the Sacramento Bee.

Politico recently reported that Harris is considering the bid after losing the presidential race to now-President Donald Trump in November. If she enters, she would likely become the frontrunner in the Democrat field. Hilton compared her to the “marine layer threatening to come in and block out the sun.”

KAMALA HARRIS PAID LEBRON JAMES’ ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY $50,000 FOR ‘CAMPAIGN EVENT PRODUCTION,’ RECORDS SHOW

“So, bring it, Kamala, if you decide to run for governor, we will beat you again,” Hilton told the crowd.

The Golden State has a jungle primary system rather than a nomination system, which leads to the possibility that members of the same political party could be the finalists in a general election race.

On the Democrat side, a long list of candidates includes former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Rep. Katie Porter and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis. On the Republican side, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco is in the race to take the helm in Sacramento.

SCOOP: NEWSOM LAUNCHES CAMPAIGN TO ENTICE RELUCTANT CANADIANS TO VISIT CALIFORNIA AMID TRUMP TARIFF PUSH

If a Republican were elected governor of the Golden State, they would likely continue to face a Democrat supermajority in the legislature. Newsom will be termed out of office and unable to serve a third term. Newsom won re-election by a wide margin against Republican Brian Dahle in 2022, and the Democrat fended off a recall election in 2021.

The state continues to face internal and external pressures as it deals with Los Angeles fire recovery, affordability concerns leading people to move, and recent oil refinery closure announcements that could create major energy production issues. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Harris’ office for comment.

EXCLUSIVE: A former NFL kicker is launching his bid for Congress on Tuesday after revealing to Fox News Digital what inspired him to make the decision to run for office. 

The sports commentator, Jay Feely, is entering the Republican primary for Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District to replace Rep. Andy Biggs, who’s running to be the Grand Canyon State’s next governor.

Feely said that while he’s been interested in politics for years, it was the assassination attempt on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump last year that inspired him to run for office.

“The lawfare that Democrats did against President Trump and you watched him get shot. That was a big moment for me. I remember starting to really think about running for office the day that he got shot,” he told Fox News Digital during an exclusive interview shortly before his announcement.

Ex-NFL kicker ‘seriously considering’ Congress run: report

Feely played for the Arizona Cardinals, Atlanta Falcons, New York Giants, New York Jets, the Miami Dolphins, and the Chicago Bears. Most recently, he’s been a CBS Sports analyst.

He noted that some of his experience on the executive committee at the NFL Player’s Association was an opportunity for him to hone his leadership skills to potentially bring to Washington.

“One of those times we had a lockout and the players were locked out by the owners. We had to negotiate,” he said.

“Those types of negotiations are similar to what goes on in the House and the Senate and goes on in Congress and, you know, you’re doing those types of negotiations all the time. And we saw it with the continued resolution just a month ago,” Feely added, adding that he’s “certainly prepared” for the job.

DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKER ARGUES HIS PARTY SHOULDN’T LOOK KINDLY ON FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AIDING TRUMP

Amid major policy changes at the border, Feely maintains that the largest issue facing the state is illegal immigration.

“The Democrats told us that they needed a bill passed in Congress or they couldn’t fix the border. And President Biden sat by and let tens of millions of illegals come into our country and he could have taken the measures that President Trump did in three months,” he said.

The Republican primary currently includes former House Speaker Pro Tempore Travis Grantham and Army veteran Alex Stovall.

GOP LAWMAKER CALLS FOR FBI INVESTIGATION INTO ‘ALARMING’ ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TOP DEM FUNDRAISING PLATFORM

Cook Political Report ranks the district as solid Republican, and it is not a target by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as a pickup opportunity, which is the case in Arizona’s first, second, and sixth districts.

Still, Feely believes he’s a “uniter” ahead of what’s expected to be a competitive midterm cycle as Republicans have an extremely narrow majority in the House.

“I think one of the things from a Republican perspective is we haven’t stayed united. Democrats stay united even when they completely disagree on issues. They’re a united front. And I give Speaker Johnson a lot of credit right now because he has kept this since President Trump was sworn into office. He has kept Republicans united, he got the cabinet members through, they’re staying united behind President Trump and his endeavors to fix the border and to fix our economy,” Feely said.

President Donald Trump has officially informed Congress that he has directed the Department of Defense to move additional forces equipped for combat into the Middle East as U.S. forces carry out military strikes against Houthi militants in Yemen in an effort to stop attacks on American forces and commercial ships in the Red Sea.

In a letter dated March 28 and released Tuesday, Trump told House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley that he had directed the Department of Defense to increase U.S. military presence in the region and launch major strikes on Houthi-controlled areas.

“I will no longer allow this band of pirates to threaten and attack United States forces and commercial vessels in one of the most important shipping lanes in the world,” Trump wrote. “We will act to keep Americans safe.”

He said the U.S. will continue striking until the group no longer poses a threat to navigation or U.S. personnel.

The strikes include Navy ships, Air Force bombers and drones targeting Houthi weapons, leadership and command centers. 

TRUMP ADMIN IMPOSES SANCTIONS AGAINST BANK OF YEMEN FOR SUPPORTING HOUTHIS

Trump said the actions are consistent with his authority as commander in chief and in line with the War Powers Resolution, which requires Congress to be kept informed.

The letter comes as the Trump administration continues daily military operations in Yemen, now entering their fourth week. The airstrikes began after renewed Houthi threats against Israeli ships and attacks on U.S. forces, including three Reaper drones brought down since March 3.

AFTER DEBILITATING STRIKES, TRUMP TELLS HOUTHIS: STOP SHOOTING AT US AND ‘WE WILL STOP SHOOTING AT YOU’

Last week, the administration sanctioned the International Bank of Yemen (IBY), accusing it of helping the Houthis move money internationally and avoid restrictions. The U.S. Treasury blocked assets tied to the bank and its leadership, including Chair Kamal Hussain Al Jebry and two top managers.

“Financial institutions like IBY are critical to the Houthis’ ability to fund attacks,” said Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender.

The Treasury and State departments say the Houthis use the bank’s access to the SWIFT global system to support terror operations, including oil purchases and weapons procurement.

In March, Trump posted on Truth Social that “many” Houthi leaders had been killed in the recent strikes, saying the group has been “decimated” and warning Iran, their chief backer, that it could be next if the attacks continue.

“The choice for the Houthis is clear,” Trump wrote. “Stop shooting at U.S. ships, and we will stop shooting at you.”

The Houthis began ramping up attacks in the Red Sea after the October 2023 Hamas terror attack on Israel. They’ve claimed responsibility for targeting U.S. warships and have so far avoided hitting Chinese and Saudi ships, raising questions among defense officials about their strategic aims.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Congress is expected to review Trump’s report in the coming days as U.S. strikes continue.

Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner, Brie Stimson and Caitlin McFall contributed to this report.

Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor snapped at each other during Tuesday’s arguments over parental rights in LGBTQ curriculum after the liberal justice attempted to jump back into the questioning as Alito was speaking. 

The short quarrel happened as the high court listened to arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which a coalition of parents sought to solidify the right to be informed about and opt their children out of reading LGBTQ-related material in elementary schools — which they argue conflicts with their faith.

Sotomayor initially asked Mahmoud attorney Eric Baxter about a particular book titled “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” that included a same-sex relationship storyline and whether exposure to same-sex relationships in children’s books could be considered coercion.

PARENTS TELL SCOTUS: LGBTQ STORYBOOKS IN CLASSROOMS CLASH WITH OUR FAITH

“Our parents would object to that,” Baxter responded. 

Sotomayor continued with her line of questioning to further clarify Baxter’s objection to the books. Baxter stated, “Our objections would be even to reading books that violate our client’s religious beliefs.”

Alito then jumped in with additional questions related to the book.

“I’ve read that book as well as a lot of these other books,” Alito began. “Do you think it’s fair to say that all that is done in ‘Uncle Bobby’s Wedding’ is to expose children to the fact that there are men who marry other men?”

Baxter objected to Alito’s question. Alito then said that while the book “has a clear message and a lot of people think it’s a good message,” some with “traditional religious beliefs don’t agree with” it.

As Alito continued with his explanation, Sotomayor jumped in.

“What a minute. The reservation is—” Sotomayor began. 

‘LET US BE THE PARENTS’: SUPREME COURT SHOULD LET PARENTS OPT KIDS OUT OF LGBTQ SCHOOL LESSONS, LAWYER ARGUES

“Can I finish?” Alito said. 

“It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with,” Alito finished.

As arguments wrapped, the Supreme Court appeared inclined to agree with the parents.

A coalition of Jewish, Christian and Muslim parents with elementary school children in Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland brought suit against the school board after it introduced new LGBTQ books into the curriculum as part of the district’s “inclusivity” initiative. 

The curriculum change came after the state of Maryland enacted regulations seeking to promote “educational equity,” according to the petitioner’s brief filed with the high court.

THE SUPREME COURT APPEARS TO SIDE WITH PARENTS IN RELIGIOUS LIBERTY DISPUTE OVER STORYBOOKS

The parents lost both at the district court and the appellate level. The Fourth Circuit held that the parents had not shown how the policy violated the First Amendment.

The case comes at a time when President Donald Trump and his administration have prioritized educational and DEI-related reform upon starting his second term. The Supreme Court has notably also heard oral arguments this past term in other religious liberty and gender-related suits. 

The high court heard oral arguments earlier this month in a suit brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group’s bid for tax relief. The decision could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions. 

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, and David Spunt contributed to this report. 

Those who default or refuse to pay their federal student loans could have their wages, federal pensions and tax refunds garnished, the White House said Tuesday. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters in her weekly briefing that the Trump administration will go after those who don’t repay the loans instead of placing the burden on taxpayers. 

“The government can and will collect defaulted federal student loan debt by withholding money from borrowers, tax refunds, federal pensions and even their wages,” she said.

TRUMP STILL NEEDS CONGRESS’ HELP WITH PLAN TO ABOLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

The Department of Education on Monday said it would resume collections on defaulted federal student loans in May for the first time since 2020. The student loan portfolio is nearly $1.6 trillion, Leavitt said, with fewer than four out of ten borrowers up to speed with their loans. 

Altogether, the official said that there are 4 million borrowers who are in the late-stage delinquency stage on payments, meaning that they are between 91 days and 180 days late on payments. 

“This is unsustainable, unfair and a huge liability for American taxpayers. Debt cannot be wiped away. It just ends up getting transferred to others,” she said. “So why should Americans who didn’t go to college, or went to college and responsibly paid back their loans, pay for the student loans of other Americans? The Trump administration will never force taxpayers to pay student loan debts that don’t belong to them.”

STAFFING REDUCTIONS AT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT HAVEN’T HIT FAFSA OFFICE AMID TRUMP CUTS, AGENCY SAYS

In a few months, there could be almost 10 million people in default, the Education Department said. 

The Biden administration attempted to bail out millions of student loan borrowers, but was blocked in some instances. 

“American taxpayers will no longer be forced to serve as collateral for irresponsible student loan policies,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “The Biden Administration misled borrowers: the executive branch does not have the constitutional authority to wipe debt away, nor do the loan balances simply disappear. Hundreds of billions have already been transferred to taxpayers.”

The Trump administration has long said that taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for trillions of dollars in student debt. 

“We must get our fiscal house in order and restore common sense to our country,” Leavitt said. “If you take out a loan, you have to pay it back. It’s very simple. President Trump will not kick the can down the road anymore.”

Far-left Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., broke his silence on Tuesday after an unearthed social media post of rap lyrics set off a firestorm of controversy.

Frost, who recently made headlines for flying to El Salvador to visit deported illegal immigrant and alleged MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was heavily criticized on social media after a seemingly cryptic tweet from 2016 resurfaced reading “f—– wit my gang gon get u spilled.”

The post was in response to tweets including by one account named “Hits LeBlunt.” The line is from the song “Gang” by rapper “Max P.”

The post generated a spate of concern and condemnation, with many saying it was unbecoming of a member of Congress to have such a post on his official account.

TRACE GALLAGHER: THE LEFT IS ‘ALL IN’ ON KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA 

Even Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who has emerged as a key ally of the Trump administration, weighed in on the controversy by posting a shoulder shrug emoji.

Rather than deleting the post, Frost simply responded to the controversy by saying, “Never thought Max P lyrics I tweeted at 19 would get so much attention from MAGA.”

Frost also tweeted out “I’ve only ever been in one gang” with an image of him in his high school band.

Frost kept going, tweeting again on Tuesday, “Keep looking through my old posts. There has to be some more funny stuff in there. Make sure you tag me.”

DEMOCRATS’ EL SALVADOR TRIP LAMPOONED BY SENATE GOP GROUP IN FAUX TOURISM AD: ‘¡BIENVENIDOS!’

Frost’s responses, however, did not quell the controversy, with users continuing to bash him for the tweet and many even posting AI meme images showing Frost with tattoos reading “DeMS-13.”

Some seemed to find the controversy funny, such as conservative influencer Benny Johnson, who posted a screenshot of Bukele’s roast of Frost with the caption, “never deleting this app.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE

Popular conservative account “End Wokeness” replied to Frost’s 2016 tweet by saying, “DeMS-13 or Tren Dem Aragua?”

Others, like the popular account “DataRepublican,” expressed that the tweet was not fitting for a member of Congress.

“You are a Congressman. You’re not a gangster. You’re not being cool or edgy. You are held to a high standard, as a representative of the mightiest nation on the Earth. Do better,” the account commented.

HOUSE DEMS DEMAND ‘PROOF OF LIFE’ OF ABREGO GARCIA AFTER BEING DENIED MEETING IN EL SALVADOR

Frost was one of five Democratic lawmakers who visited El Salvador last week to advocate for the release and return of Abrego Garcia from the Salvadoran mega prison known as the “Terrorist Confinement Center” (CECOT).

Posting on X from El Salvador, the congressman accused President Donald Trump of “illegally arresting, jailing, & deporting people with no due process.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“We must hold the Administration accountable for these illegal acts and demand Kilmar’s release. Today it’s him, tomorrow it could be anyone else,” said Frost.

Besides Frost, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Reps. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., Maxine Dexter, D-Ore., and Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., also flew to El Salvador on behalf of Abrego Garcia.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday hosted Cabinet officials from across the Trump administration for the first meeting of a new interagency task force aimed at eradicating “anti-Christian bias” within the federal government. 

During Tuesday’s meeting, Bondi described the task force as one aimed at remedying the “abuse” under the Biden-led Justice Department and at other federal agencies prior to Trump’s second presidential term.

“As President Donald Trump has stated, the Biden administration engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses,” Bondi told a small group of reporters. “The president is right.” 

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS HALT TO TRUMP ADMIN’S CFPB TERMINATIONS

Bondi was joined Tuesday by a long list of senior Cabinet officials from across the federal government, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, FBI Director Kash Patel, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Other senior agency officials were also present. 

Bondi also used the meeting to highlight some of the actions the Trump administration has taken to crack down on anti-Christian biases.

To date, the Justice Department has dropped three ongoing cases against pro-lifers and “redefined the FACE Act” to help protect against what Bondi and others have described as the weaponization of pro-life groups and others.

Ultimately, “the First Amendment isn’t just the line in the Constitution. It’s the cornerstone of our American memory,” Bondi said. “It guarantees every citizen the right to speak freely, worship freely, and live according to their conscience without government interference. Protecting Christians from bias is not favoritism. It’s upholding the rule of law and fulfilling the constitutional promise.”

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the group planned to use the meeting to hear from individuals who had been harmed as a result of “anti-Christian sentiment” under the Biden administration, and the various ways this bias may have shown up in their departments or agencies. 

That part of the meeting was closed to the press.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE

Shortly before reporters were escorted from the room, Fox News asked the Department of Justice officials and other members of the task force whether they would share any examples of the anti-Christian bias within their agencies or any of the personal stories that they planned to touch on in the closed-door portion of the meeting.

The officials in attendance did not immediately answer the question, and Justice Department officials told Fox News and other reporters present that they would circulate more information after the meeting.  

Trump first created the task force via an executive order in February, with the goal of rooting out “anti-Christian targeting and discrimination” within the government.

The president also selected Bondi to head up the task force — whom he praised as someone he trusted to “fully prosecute anti-Christian violence and vandalism in our society.”

The task force’s first meeting comes just days after Politico reported that the Trump administration sent an internal cable to State Department employees ordering them to report any instances of coworkers displaying “anti-Christian bias” as part of the task force initiative.

The internal cable encouraged employees to share information via a tip form, noting that their responses could be kept anonymous, and was reportedly sent to embassies around the world, as well as the department headquarters in D.C.

“Biden’s Department of Justice abused and targeted Christians,” Trump said earlier this year. “Pro-life Christians were arrested and imprisoned for peacefully praying outside abortion clinics… NO MORE!”

Gov. Gavin Newsom has made California the first state to offer a generic version of the overdose-reversal drug Narcan for public purchase through a state-run storefront, while the state’s health department continues to promote a “Harm Reduction” model for the so-called “safe” use of drugs.

“Life-saving medications shouldn’t come with a life-altering price tag,” Newsom said in a statement Monday. 

“CalRx is about making essential drugs like naloxone affordable and accessible for all — not the privileged few. California is using our market power as the 5th largest economy in the world to disrupt a billion-dollar industry to save lives…and we’re just getting started.”

The program comes nearly a year after California’s CalRx brand began selling over-the-counter naloxone nasal spray to businesses and government groups.

SCOOP: NEWSOM ASKS WORLD LEADERS TO EXEMPT CALIFORNIA EXPORTS FROM RETALIATORY TARIFFS

But the state’s public health department sanctions the “safe” use of drugs through its promotion of the California Harm Reduction Initiative (CHRI), which works to reduce overdoses by handing out syringes and fentanyl test strips, among other initiatives. 

“The California Department of Public Health (CDPH), Office of AIDS (OA) has determined that safer injection, safer smoking and sniffing materials, provided in a harm reduction context alongside health education and other care, may reduce the spread of communicable diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C, and reduce the risk of injury and fatal drug overdose,” a state fact sheet about syringe services programs (SSPs) in 2022 reads. 

NEWSOM SIGNS $2.8B BAILOUT FOR HEALTHCARE PROGRAM OVERRUN BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

In 2017, California became the first state to pass legislation permitting supervised consumption services (SCS), allowing local jurisdictions to establish pilot programs for drug users to consume substances under supervision. By 2022, SB 57 was passed, authorizing overdose prevention programs in select cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles. This legislation further integrated harm reduction into the state’s health policies. 

The progressive program has drawn criticism from conservative leaders over the last several years.

“This is a nuanced issue of public safety on which Newsom’s approach is here… so often, ironic,” Will Swaim, president of the think tank California Policy Center told Fox News Digital. “This is like Newsom suing Trump over tariffs — the guy who has done so much to destroy business wants to pretend now he’s pro-business?”

Swaim added that “like Narcan accessibility, that’s not a good fit for him.”

NEWSOM’S ‘UNFAIR’ REMARK ON GIRLS’ SPORTS BELIES RECORD AS GOVERNOR: ‘ABSOLUTE BULLS—‘

Rep. Dan Meuser, a Pennsylvania Republican, is supporting the White House’s proposed tax hike for people making more than $1 million. 

“I believe we must help the President deliver on his promise of a tax and regulatory plan that supports pro-American economic and manufacturing growth, and delivers for the vast majority of Americans – while creating savings and promoting fiscal responsibility. Any adjustments in taxes to accomplish these goals should be considered,” Meuser told Fox News Digital in a statement on Tuesday. 

Last week, White House aides began quietly floating a proposal to House Republicans that would raise the tax rate to 40% for Americans making more than $1 million, sources told Fox News Digital about the preliminary discussions. The plan would shore up income to fund President Donald Trump’s ambitious campaign promises to eliminate taxes on overtime, tips and Social Security.

On Thursday, Meuser said on “Mornings with Maria” that he suggested a less than 2% tax hike for the “wealthy, high-end income” tax bracket months ago. He noted that Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the top tax rate from 39.6% to 37%, so raising it to 38.6% would still keep it below the pre-TCJA level by nearly one percentage point.

WHITE HOUSE QUIETLY FLOATS MILLIONAIRE TAX HIKE PROPOSAL IN CONGRESS AS GOP LEADERS SIGNAL OPPOSITION

“We’re fighting for small business. We’re fighting for all of America and for the job creators that might be in those categories. So, if you were to bring it up by 1 point, it brings $15 billion in revenues, right? Without any elasticity, which could take place. So, if it did come up to 39[%], it’s almost $25 billion,” Meuser said, touting the billions in revenue that a small tax hike could reap for the economy. 

SCOOP: PENCE URGES REPUBLICANS TO HOLD THE LINE ON TAX HIKES FOR THE RICH AS TRUMP WEIGHS OPTIONS

The Pennsylvania Republican, who joined Trump on the 2024 campaign trail and is considered a potential candidate to challenge Gov. Josh Shapiro in 2026, stressed Trump’s all-of-the-above tax approach.

“The president is determined not to have a standard – and this is my view, from what I’ve based upon him, I’m not putting in words in his mouth – a standard Republican-style budget. What he wants to see is something that is in the interest of all America, middle-income America, small businesses, and by the way, we would be talking about an exemption for pass-through small businesses so they would not be paying at the higher rate, as they do now, at their income level rate,” Meuser said. 

While Meuser has indicated his warmth to the idea of tax hikes for the ultra-wealthy, other conservatives have remained steadfast in their rejection of any tax increases. 

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital last week that tax cuts are “what Republicans are good at” as he urged his fellow Republicans to protect tax cuts for working-class Americans who fuel Trump’s base. More Republicans, including Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Rep. Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin are pushing to make Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent, which is considered a Republican priority during budget negotiations. 

GOP PUSH TO MAKE TRUMP’S 2017 TAX CUTS PERMANENT, SAY GOING BACK WOULD BE A ‘DRAMATIC’ CHANGE FOR MANY

Former Vice President Mike Pence, who refers to the 2017 tax cuts as the “Trump-Pence tax cuts,” last week urged House Republicans to stand firm against raising taxes on the country’s top earners and make the 2017 tax cuts permanent. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Advancing American Freedom, Pence’s conservative policy advocacy group, sent a letter to congressional Republicans, including House Ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., and Senate Finance Committee Chair Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, last week, urging Congress to “stand firm against tax hikes.”

The number of illegal immigrants caught along one northern border sector that was once “overrun by illegal migrants” has dramatically declined under the Trump administration after it saw thousands of unlawful crossings last year, the White House said Tuesday. 

Only 54 illegal immigrants were apprehended last month in the Swanton Sector, which stretches more than 300 miles, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, citing U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

“This is a drastic 95% drop from the more than a thousand border crossings that were caught in March 2024,” she said. “This is a main hotspot area that recorded more than 80% of all apprehensions along the northern border during the 2024 fiscal year.”

NOT A MARYLAND MAN: GOP BLASTS DEMOCRAT SENATOR FIGHTING FOR RETURN OF SALVADORAN NATIONAL

In fiscal year 2024, 19,222 illegal immigrants were apprehended along the sector. The migrants hailed from 97 countries, sector Chief Patrol Agent Robert Garcia said at the time. 

The apprehensions amounted to more than the past 17 years combined, authorities said. In FY 2020, the agents assigned to the sector apprehended 574 illegal immigrants, followed by 365 the next year.

KILMAR GARCIA NOW GETS 5 TOTAL DEM PROPONENTS IN EL SALVADOR

The Swanton Sector encompasses 24,000 square miles and includes Vermont; Clinton, Essex, Franklin, St. Lawrence and Herkimer counties of New York; and Coos, Grafton and Carroll counties of New Hampshire. It also borders the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario.

On Monday, Garcia called the difference between the 1,109 apprehensions in March 2024 and last month a “stark contrast.”

“Our mission of border security never stops; people are still smuggling humans & contraband entering the country illegally,” he wrote on X.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Under Trump, the catch and release of illegal migrants dropped by 99.99%, compared to the Biden administration, in which 189,604 migrants were released into the United States in December 2023, at the height of the border crisis, Leavitt said.

In February, Border Patrol agents caught and released only 20 illegal immigrants, she added.

Welcome to the Fox News Politics newsletter, with the latest updates on the Trump administration, Capitol Hill and more Fox News politics content.

Here’s what’s happening…

–‘Let us be the parents’: Supreme Court should let parents opt kids out of LGBTQ school lessons, lawyer argues

-Republicans troll Dems’ El Salvador visits with offer to foot travel bill – in exchange for one thing

-Trump Energy chief recounts evolution of US environs over 55 ‘Earth Days’: ‘A handily-energized society works

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday sided with left-leaning justices in an immigration appeals case, a narrow ruling that could portend the court’s future thinking amid a flurry of legal cases centered on immigration.

The 5-4 ruling in Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi centered on the government’s interpretation of a 60-day “voluntary departure” deadline, which authorities can use to allow certain immigrants deemed to be of “good moral character” to depart the U.S. on their own terms within that timeframe.

The Supreme Court ruled, with the backing of Roberts and Gorsuch, that any voluntary departure deadlines for immigrants under the 60-day departure timeframe that fall on a weekend or on a legal holiday in the U.S. should be extended to the next business day…Read more

PAPAL ‘INFLUENCE’: The long line of the papacy: Francis’ death renews focus on the Church’s most powerful figures

A LONG HISTORY: White House-Vatican relationship stretches a century, including fighting communism

SURVEY SAYS: Trump’s third term trial balloon gets resounding response in new poll

CLIMATE OF COMPARISON: Al Gore compares Trump admin to Hitler’s Third Reich

ALLIANCE IN FOCUS: JD Vance champions ‘roadmap’ toward US-India trade deal, says partnership critical to deterring ‘dark time’

DEMOCRATS’ IDENTITY CRISIS: Youth revolt rocks party after Trump comeback

HIGHER ED FEUD: The Trump admin froze funding for Harvard. These schools’ funding is also on the chopping block

‘CLEAR FACTS AND EVIDENCE’: House Republican asks Trump DOJ to criminally prosecute ex-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo

‘BIENVENIDOS!’: Democrats’ El Salvador trip lampooned by Senate GOP group in faux tourism ad: ‘¡Bienvenidos!’

‘NEW MODEL FOR AMERICAN MANUFACTURING’: GOP lawmaker touts $19M Trump tariff success story in her district: ‘New model for American manufacturing’

‘YOU CAN LEAVE’: Florida protester screams at Rep. Byron Donalds during tense town hall

POLLING PLUNGE: Schumer sinks, AOC soars in new poll as liberal voters demand harder line on Trump

END TO ‘CHAOS’: House Dem jumps into crowded Michigan Senate race

‘NEEDS TO BE IMPRISONED’: Dems fume over ‘due process’ for Abrego Garcia despite long history of party bucking the legal principle

‘HE WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN!’: Trump issues full-throated endorsement of Sen. Steve Daines

CHURCH AND STATE: Republican civil war brewing over taxpayer-funded Catholic school

BOOKED: Parents tell SCOTUS: LGBTQ storybooks in classrooms clash with our faith

SWEEPING REFORM: Rubio overhauling ‘bloated’ State Department in sweeping reform

MOVE ‘EM OUT: Noem, DHS outline next step to speed up deportation process

‘STAY WOKE’: Likely Dem gubernatorial candidate in key swing state praises DEI at Sharpton event

PICKING SIDES: Federal judge orders ICE to reinstate legal status of 133 foreign students

Get the latest updates on the Trump administration and Congress, exclusive interviews and more on FoxNews.com.

Rep. Vince Fong, R-Calif., is one of the many voices sounding the alarm about a recent oil refinery closure announcement having a greater impact on American wallets.

Valero Energy Corp. announced that it will likely close its Benicia refinery near San Francisco in April 2026, putting more than 400 jobs in jeopardy.

“We understand the impact that this may have on our employees, business partners, and community, and will continue to work with them through this period,” Lane Riggs, chair, CEO and president of Valero, said in a news release on April 16.

Fong said the state’s energy policies are making it tough for the industry to survive.

CALIFORNIA CAREER POLITICIAN BARBARA LEE WINS MAYOR RACE IN EMBATTLED OAKLAND

“This is in addition to other refinery closures that have been announced. So, in totality, what we’re looking at is 20% of California’s refining capacity disappearing. And that’s significant,” Fong told Fox News Digital in an interview.  

Valero also operates a refinery in Los Angeles, but the move regarding the Benicia location is seen as a major hit.

“It’s a warning that California’s fuel supply is in jeopardy, and it’s all caused because of [Democrat Gov.] Gavin Newsom’s poor energy policies. That’s the root cause, and the rigid regulatory environment, all the mandates, all the new regulations that have been put on these refineries, and now it’s putting our fuel supply in jeopardy. And this isn’t just an energy issue. This is an affordability issue. This is a jobs issue. This is a reliability issue,” he continued.

ALASKA SENATOR LITERALLY SHREDS BIDEN’S ENERGY ORDERS, BOOSTS WH EFFORTS TO LEVERAGE ARCTIC GAS PIPELINE

The Golden State’s policies are major contributors to higher gas prices in the state, according to a recent study by University of Southern California professor Michael Mische.

“California’s energy policy is at a breaking point,” Fong said. “This is not a market failure. This is because of regulations and mandates that are pushing refineries to close. They can’t survive in this and make it economically feasible to function in California. And those who are going to suffer are everyday Californians.“

As the state is a major energy supplier, the congressman said its regulations have occasionally gained bipartisan scrutiny from neighboring Arizona and Nevada.

“This is going to impact California drivers significantly,” Fong said. “When there’s gasoline shortages, what you’re going to see is the price of gasoline go up. And in California, you know, we pay the highest price of gas compared to the other states.”

US, SAUDI ARABIA COULD CEMENT ‘LONG-TERM PARTNERSHIP’ ON NUCLEAR ENERGY

As of Sunday, Californians are paying an average of $4.83 per gallon, which is significantly higher than the $3.15 national average, according to AAA.

Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom’s office for comment, but it referred the inquiry to the California Energy Commission, which said Valero’s legally required advance notice will help the state better prepare for its next steps.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“The California Energy Commission (CEC) is committed to its efforts to collaborate with the industry and stakeholders so that the state continues to have a safe, reliable and affordable supply while transitioning away from fossil fuels,” CEC Vice Chair Siva Sunda stated. “As required under Senate Bill X1-2, Valero Refining Company notified the CEC of its intent to idle, restructure or cease operations at its Benicia Refinery by the end of April 2026. This advance notification helps the state to continue to closely monitor the evolving conditions in the fuel supply market and proactively plan and take steps to support the transition in the state’s fuel supply.”

“The CEC will continue to work in partnership with the industry and stakeholders to protect consumers during this transition,” he continued.

Valero faces $82 million in fines from different governmental bodies in California over environmental regulations, according to KXJZ.

“It’s just doing the right thing.” 

That’s how Portage County, Ohio Sheriff Bruce Zuchowski summed up for Fox News Digital his decision to buck the trend of local leaders vowing to resist the Trump administration’s deportation efforts by allowing his deputies to assist ICE with immigration enforcement.

While many state and local leaders have doubled down on their support for undocumented migrants and pledged to resist the Trump administration’s deportation efforts, Zuchowski has gone in the exact opposite direction. 

Zuchowski has entered his northeastern Ohio sheriff’s office into what is called a 287(g) agreement with ICE, which will allow several of his deputies to be “dual commissioned” to enforce immigration law in addition to their regular law enforcement duties.

Portage County joins just two other counties in Ohio — Butler and Seneca — that have agreed to assist with immigration enforcement by signing onto the 287(g) program. According to Zuchowski, the agreement allows his deputies to make immigration arrests and to more efficiently coordinate with ICE to get criminal illegal aliens off the streets.

NEW MEXICO JUDGE RESIGNS AFTER ALLEGED TDA MEMBER ARRESTED AT HIS HOME

Despite all the controversy surrounding his decision, Zuchowski saw it as an obvious choice.

“People expect — there is an expectation that law enforcement is going to keep them safe and we’re going to do it by whatever means we have available to us,” he explained.

“There’s nobody, and I don’t care what party you are, that wants anybody criminal, whether they’re here legally or not, roaming around in their county and their communities. So, that’s all we’ve done,” he added. “At the end of the day, it’s just doing the right thing.”

Zuchowski, himself a former deputy sheriff, said that in the past, deputies would have to wait hours or even days for ICE to be able to pick up a criminal illegal alien. During the Biden administration, he said that he was even told that unless the illegal criminal had “severed heads” in the back of their vehicle or had committed some extreme heinous crime, ICE agents could not even come to check on the illegal.

MORE THAN 500K IMMIGRANTS MISSED THEIR COURT HEARINGS ON BIDEN’S WATCH: ANALYSIS

Now, Portage County sheriff’s deputies will be able to make arrests of illegal alien and hold them until ICE agents arrive.

Zuchowski, who won re-election to a second term last November, clarified that his office would not be doing anything outside the normal law enforcement duties they are already conducting.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE

“We’re not just going to randomly pull people out because of the color of their skin or the language that they speak, solely on that. It’s going to be, obviously, [because] they’re committing some sort of a criminal act, something that would, out of my deputy’s normal duty, [they] would have to respond to and have to react to. And that’s all we’re going to do,” he explained.

“The left likes to run with this type of thing and make it the worst possible scenario to where it’s like we’re kicking in Mexican restaurants and we’re kicking in dorms at universities and we’re going to go door to door and start pulling people out of their houses. That’s not what we’re doing at all,” he went on. “By doing this, I’ve just given my deputies another tool for their toolbox in order for them to do their job more proficiently and help keep Portage County safer.”

ALITO BLASTS ‘UNPRECEDENTED’ SCOTUS MOVE TO HALT TRUMP’S VENEZUELAN DEPORTATIONS: ‘LEGALLY QUESTIONABLE’

He noted that he is “surprised” more Ohio sheriffs have not already signed onto the 287(g) program because of how much safer he believes it will make their communities. He said he is hopeful more sheriffs will “do the right thing.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“We’re just doing our part as law enforcement to keep people safe,” he said. “Basically, it’s like President Trump walked into a large conference of law enforcement officials and said, ‘Hey, who wants to be a part of this 287-G Act and help ICE to be able to get criminal, illegal immigrants, migrants out of America?’ And I simply raised my hand.”

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority offered strong support for parents seeking the religious liberty right to be informed about and opt their children out of reading material in elementary schools that they say conflicts with their faith.

The Montgomery County, Maryland school board withdrew its original opt-out policy for books related to gender and sexuality, prompting a federal lawsuit.

In a marathon two-and-a-half oral argument, the justices debated whether parents have been unfairly burdened in exercising their constitutional rights.

It is one of three high-profile religious-themed cases the high court will decide this term—including disputes over tax exemptions for religious groups, and taxpayer funding for private religious charter schools—which will be argued next week.

GORSUCH, ROBERTS SIDE WITH LEFT-LEANING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IN IMMIGRATION RULING

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and her liberal colleagues appeared to back the county’s position on the storybooks. She noted a lower appeals court had refused a preliminary injunction to temporarily reinstate the opt-out policy.

“They never reached the issue of whether or not there was disruption, or what the motive was for taking away the opt out,” said Sotomayor. “What they decided was that there wasn’t coercion here, that there was mere exposure. I understood from the record that all that was required is that the books be put on the bookshelf. If that’s all that’s required, is that coercion?”

But Justice Samuel Alito echoed the views of several of his conservative colleagues, about returning to the previous policy that he said most schools around the country permit.

“What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?” he asked.

Alito also questioned the content of several of the books raised in the appeal dealing with same-sex marriage.

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” said Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”   

Hundreds on both sides of the issue rallied outside the court, some carrying signs like “Let Parents Parent” and “Include All Families.”

The suburban Washington county introduced new books with LGBTQ+ characters and themes into the elementary school curriculum in 2022, as part of the district’s “inclusivity” initiative.

PROSECUTION CALLS THEIR SECOND WITNESS AT KAREN READ’S RETRIAL FOR MURDER

One of the challenged storybooks raised in the appeals is “Prince & Knight,” described as a “modern fairy tale” for ages 4-8, of the two males falling in love after working together to battle a dragon threatening their kingdom, and later marrying.

Another book mentioned repeatedly in the court’s public session was “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” about a little girl’s reaction to her favorite relative’s plans to marry a man.

The school district refused to allow parents to opt out of their

The school district refused to allow parents to opt out of their elementary school from the reading program – the same way older students can forego sex ed instruction.

While the school board initially allowed parents to keep their children out of this curriculum, the plaintiffs say officials quickly reversed course, announcing in March 2023 that exceptions would not be granted and that parents would not be notified before the books were introduced into their children’s classrooms. Officials cited increased absenteeism as one of the reasons for the change.

“We felt as parents that we would present these things to our children like we always have, when they’re ready to receive them. And especially a child with special needs, it’s even more difficult for her to understand,” said Grace Morrison, one of the plaintiffs. She and her husband, both Catholics, now homeschool their daughter, after the school refused an accommodation.  

“Starting to present issues of gender ideology to a child like this could be extremely confusing and damaging, let alone to the faith that we’re raising her in,” she told Fox News Digital.

 A federal appeals court ruled for the school district, concluding educators did not apply any pressure on children to abandon their religious beliefs, and “simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires.”

State officials told the court that parents who choose to send their children to public school are not “coerced” simply by their classroom exposure there to religiously objectionable ideas.

The practical feasibility of an opt-out policy at was the key focus of the high court’s public session.

“Once we articulate a rule like that,” said Justice Elena Kagan, “it would be like, opt outs for everyone.”

SCOTUS HEARS ARGUMENTS OVER PARENTS’ FIGHT TO OPT CHILDREN OUT OF LGBTQ CURRICULUM

But Kagan also raised concerns about young children being exposed to some of the books offered in Montgomery County.

“I too, was struck by these young kids picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality. I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who noted he grew up in the affluent county and still lives there with his wife and two school-age daughters, said he was “mystified” at the why the county canceled its original opt-out policy.

Some on the bench raised concerns about a sweeping “a la carte” discretion parents would have to object to what goes in schools.

“What about a trans student in the classroom?” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “There’s a student who’s in the class. Must the teacher notify the parents of the student’s existence and give them an opt out to not be in the same classroom with this child?”

Dozens of briefs were filed by advocacy groups on both sides of the issue, including competing coalitions of states and lawmakers.

Many educators say they should be given deference to develop lesson plans that reflect the community at large, and that navigating a flood of individual religious rights claims would make classroom instruction and collaboration extremely problematic.

Parents rights and religious groups counter impressionable children should not be forced to participate in reading activities that undermine their families’ teachings and spirituality. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, representing the parents who sued, called the school policy “compelled instruction.”

The Trump administration is backing the parents, saying in a written brief the board’s no opt-out policy “compromises parents’ ability to act consistent with those [religious] beliefs regardless of whether their children feel pressured or coerced by the instruction.” 

The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor (24-297). A ruling is expected before the court’s summer recess in late June.

Kristine Parks and Jessica Sonkin contributed to this report.

A three-judge appeals panel in Washington, D.C., grilled the Trump administration over its expected implementation of the Pentagon’s transgender military ban policy and a lower court’s finding of animus behind the ban.

Judges Cornelia T.L. Pillard, an Obama-appointee, and Trump-appointees Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao presided over Tuesday’s oral arguments over an order blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military from going into effect. 

“We have a sitting president issuing an executive order that has animus on its face, not directing anyone, any panel of experts, to study this issue, but simply directing the Secretary of Defense to implement a ban on transgender service by transgender persons,” Pillard told Justice Department attorney Jason Manion. “And within a month, the Secretary of Defense doing so with no further study other than the Mattis policy.”

FEDERAL JUDGE DENIES TRUMP ADMIN’S EFFORT TO BAN TRANSGENDER PEOPLE FROM MILITARY

D.C.-based District Judge Ana Reyes had previously blocked the Trump administration from implementing its ban in March, with Reyes writing in her opinion that the order was “soaked in animus” and discriminated based on a person’s transgender status. 

Rao asked Manion if the government conceded that there was animus behind the order, to which Manion said they did not. 

“The relevant question is whether the policy can be explained by any reason other than animus,” Manion responded. 

Counsel for the appellees, Shannon Minter, also focused on the finding of animus by the lower court, arguing that the policy at hand “does something that is so extraordinarily unusual.”

“The government openly, just with complete transparency, expressing animosity towards a group of people and relying on that as a justification and the district court properly noted that,” Minter said. 

Pillard, who notably asked a majority of the questions, also honed in on the “irreparable harm” the government argues it will suffer if the appeals court does not stay Reyes’ order. 

HEGSETH SUGGESTS JUDGE REPORT TO MILITARY BASES AFTER RULING THAT PENTAGON MUST ALLOW TRANSGENDER TROOPS

Manion argued that Reyes’ order not only affects the military’s competence and readiness as the ban is put on pause, but it also conflicts with the president’s constitutional powers. 

Manion argued that the “main injuries” include the inability to enforce what the Department believes “to be a valid policy.”

Pillard responded back, asking why the government has not previously expressed such concerns of military readiness and competence in past years before the policy came about. 

“How has the military worked under a different policy?” Pillard asked. “It’s striking to me that the government…has not stymied that.”

Katsas specifically asked the government how it expected to go about implementing the policy, asking what procedure would take place “on the back end when there is a servicemember serving who… is found to have some condition that would have been disqualifying at the exception stage.”

“Is it a discretionary judgment by a military board? Is it administrative separation?” Katsas asked.

Manion said he believed some conditions “undergo an individualized process” in those situations. 

Pillard expanded upon this line of questioning, asking if there were any other conditions that did not have to undergo a medical evaluation. Manion said he could not think of any at that moment. 

“This is a core area of presidential power,” Manion said. “[The military] has determined this will increase readiness and not being able to enact it will harm the military and all of those factors add up to irreparable harm here.”

Minter likewise argued that there is “no other medical condition that puts a person automatically into separation,” saying “every other condition goes into a med process are you able to do your job.”

SKEPTICAL JUDGE QUESTIONS EXECUTIVE ORDER BARRING TRANSGENDER SERVICE MEMBERS FROM JOINING THE MILITARY

“We don’t talk about people with diabetes or heart conditions being dishonest… that’s just a red flag,” Minter said. 

No ruling was issued, but an opinion is expected in the coming days that will likely be appealed to the high court. 

Minter told Fox News Digital after the oral arguments that they were “encouraged by the argument and hopeful the court will deny the stay.”

“The plaintiffs in this case are serving with honor and distinction. They have received medals and commendations, deployed worldwide, and been selected for positions of extraordinary responsibility and leadership,” Minter said. “Purging them from the military will not make our country, safer, stronger, or more secure.”

At issue in the case is a Jan. 27 executive order signed by Trump requiring the Defense Department to update its guidance regarding “trans-identifying medical standards for military service” and to “rescind guidance inconsistent with military readiness.” 

In issuing her injunction, Reyes wrote in her opinion that the plaintiffs in the suit “face a violation of their constitutional rights, which constitutes irreparable harm” that would warrant a preliminary injunction.”

The defendants in the suit, which include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction on March 21. 

In the filing, the government argued that the policy is not an overarching ban but instead “turns on gender dysphoria – a medical condition – and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class.”

After the government agreed to push the implementation deadline to March 28 upon Reyes’ request, Reyes denied the government’s motion to dissolve the injunction, prompting the administration to appeal shortly thereafter. 

Fox News Digital’s Diana Stancy contributed to this report. 

FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., is officially entering the race to replace longtime retiring Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Barr, who has served in the House for over a decade, is expected to kick off his campaign in Richmond, Kentucky this evening.

He’s also releasing a video to launch the campaign that paints him as a staunch ally of President Donald Trump and a fierce opponent of “woke” trends on diversity, transgender inclusion, and U.S. energy dominance.

“The United States is the greatest country on Earth, and it’s not even close. But here’s the problem. The woke left wants to neuter America – literally,” the Kentucky Republican said in the video. 

MEET THE TRUMP-PICKED LAWMAKERS GIVING SPEAKER JOHNSON A FULL HOUSE GOP CONFERENCE

“They hate our values. They hate our history. And goodness knows they hate President Trump. But here in Kentucky, that’s why we love him. I’m Andy Barr, and I’m running for Senate to help our President save this great country.”

His candidacy sets up a high-profile primary race against former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron.

In the video, Barr promised to “deport illegal aliens, instead of putting them up in luxury hotels,” and “get rid of this anti-coal, do-gooder ESG garbage once and for all.”

“Working with President Trump, I’ll fight to create jobs for hardworking Kentuckians, instead of warm and fuzzies for hardcore liberals,” Barr said in the video. “And as a dad, let me be clear. I’ll fight to lock up the sickos who allow biological men to share locker rooms with our daughters.”

His Senate campaign has also been blessed by House GOP leaders, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., and House Republican Leadership Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.

SENATE GOP PUSHES TRUMP BUDGET FRAMEWORK THROUGH AFTER MARATHON VOTE SERIES

“There is no bigger supporter of President Donald J. Trump and our MAGA movement than my dear friend Andy Barr,” Scalise told Fox News Digital. “I am all-in for Andy in his campaign for the US Senate — proud to support him.”

Stefanik said, “I am proud to call Andy a friend and I wholeheartedly endorse his campaign for US Senate. Kentucky needs a Senator who stands 100% with President Trump — that my friend, Andy Barr.”

Barr said their support “is a strong signal to all Kentuckians that there is only one America First candidate in this race — and only one candidate with a proven record of getting our America First agenda across the finish line.”

The conservative lawmaker has been known as a reliable leadership ally in the House and serves as chair of the House Financial Services Committee’s subcommittee on financial institutions.

He’s also a leader of several groups in the House, including the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, the Congressional Bourbon Caucus, and the American Worker Task Force.

McConnell is the longest-serving senator in Kentucky history and the longest-serving party leader in the upper chamber, only stepping down from leading the Senate GOP conference at the end of last year.

His final years in office have been marked by his rocky relationship with Trump, who has called for an end to McConnell’s political career on multiple occasions.

Trump and McConnell have also broken on matters of foreign policy and defense. McConnell opposed two major Trump nominees in the national security sphere, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth.

McConnell also opposed Trump’s Health and Human Services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Barr and Cameron’s campaigns are a stark departure from that – both have painted themselves as staunch Trump allies.

And in Kentucky, where Trump outran former Vice President Kamala Harris by roughly 30%, the president’s endorsement will likely prove decisive.

Counsel representing a coalition of parents fighting for the choice to opt their children out of LGBTQ-related curriculum says the case is about letting parents “be the parents.”

“We’re just saying if the school board is going to make that decision, let us have the chance to leave the classroom,” Colten Stanberry, counsel at Becket and attorney for the parents bringing the suit, told Fox News Digital. “And so I think for my parent clients, they’re saying let us be the parents. Keep us involved in the school decision-making process. Don’t try to cut us out.”

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in parents’ fight to opt their children out of LGBTQ-related curriculum. 

The issue at hand in the case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is whether parents have a right to be informed about and to then opt their children out of reading books in elementary schools that conflict with their faith.

MARYLAND MOM TAKING FIGHT TO OPT CHILD OUT OF LGBTQ STORY BOOKS BEFORE SUPREME COURT

“Our case is not a book ban case,” Stanberry emphasized.

“We’re not saying that these books can’t be on the shelves. We’re saying we want to be out of the class,” Stanberry continued. “And we’re also not saying that teachers can’t teach this material.”

A coalition of Jewish, Christian and Muslim parents with elementary school children in Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland brought suit against the school board after it introduced new LGBTQ books into the curriculum as part of the district’s “inclusivity” initiative. The curriculum change came after the state of Maryland enacted regulations seeking to promote “educational equity,” according to the petitioner’s brief filed with the high court.

The school board introduced books that featured transgender and non-binary characters and storylines, according to the brief. 

The parents’ coalition stated in its brief that the Board “initially honored parental opt-outs in accordance with its own Guidelines and Maryland law” after parents raised concerns over the new curriculum. After the board issued a public statement in line with this stance, the petitioners stated that the board “reversed course” without prior notice. 

“Without explanation, it announced that beginning with the 2023-2024 school year, ‘[s]tudents and families may not choose to opt out’ and will not be informed when ‘books are read,’” the brief reads. 

SCOTUS RULINGS THIS TERM COULD STRENGTHEN RELIGIOUS RIGHTS PROTECTIONS, EXPERT SAYS

The parents sued the school board, arguing that the denial of notice and opt-outs “violated the Free Exercise Clause by overriding their freedom to direct the religious upbringing of their children and by burdening their religious exercise via policies that are not neutral or generally applicable,” petitioners wrote. 

The parents cited Wisconsin v. Yoder, a 1972 Supreme Court case, to support their argument. In Yoder, the Court held that a state law requiring children to attend school past eighth grade violated the parents’ constitutional rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to direct their children’s religious upbringings.

Stanberry says that while this case is much narrower than Yoder, the issue at hand is “a right parents have had from the Supreme Court for over 50 years.” 

The school board argued in its brief, “The record contains no evidence that teachers have been or will be ‘directed’ or ‘instructed’ to inject any views about gender or sexuality into classroom discussions about the storybooks.” 

The school board writes that the storybooks were “offered as an option for literature circles, book clubs, or reading groups; or used for read-alouds.” 

“Teachers are not required to use any of the storybooks in any given lesson, and were not provided any associated mandatory discussion points, classroom activities, or assignments,” the brief continued. 

The lower court denied the parents’ motion, finding that they could not show “‘that the no-opt-out policy burdens their religious exercise.'”

On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s decision, with the majority holding that the parents had not shown how the policy violated the First Amendment.

SUPREME COURT APPEARS LIKELY TO SIDE WITH CATHOLIC CHURCH AND TRUMP IN KEY RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION CASE

Despite the lower court proceedings, Stanberry shared they are “hopeful and excited” as the high court considers the case. 

“We think this court will really consider the case,” Stanberry said ahead of Tuesday’s arguments. “Obviously, I don’t have a crystal ball. I can’t predict how it’s going to come out, but we’re feeling good going into it.” 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, the school board said its policy “is grounded in our commitment to provide an appropriate classroom environment for all of our students,” saying the board believes “a curriculum that fosters respect for people of different backgrounds does not burden the free exercise of religion.” 

“Based on established law, as discussed in our brief and by our counsel at today’s argument, we believe the Supreme Court can and should affirm the lower courts’ rulings,” Liliana López, Public Information Officer for the public schools, said. “Regardless of the outcome, we are grateful for the opportunity to have our case heard by the highest court in the land. We await the Court’s decision.”

The case comes at a time when President Donald Trump and his administration have prioritized educational and DEI-related reform upon starting his second term. The Supreme Court has notably also heard oral arguments this past term in other religious liberty and gender-related suits. 

“I think that this case could be seen as people of faith coming forward and saying, ‘Hey, we want to be accommodated in this pluralistic society. So, I think it’s coming at an opportune moment,” Stanberry said. 

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in mid-January during its 2024-2025 term.

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, and Kristine Parks contributed to this report.