Friday, June 28th, was a banner day at the Supreme Court for the president, for parents, for children, and for every American. In a series of 6-3 Supreme Court decisions, the conservative justices ruled on a number of First Amendment issues, upholding individual and religious freedom. Thank you for the millions of prayer warriors, you have been in deep prayer for months over these specific cases and for the justices to rule according to God’s wisdom and will.

The Supreme Court made many more righteous decisions. Court Stands Up for Religious Freedom and Parental Rights In a landmark decision of parental rights and controlling their children’s education, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 in Mahmood v. Taylor that parents did have the right to opt their children out of school lessons promoting the LGBTQ+ agenda.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion affirming the free exercise clause of the First Amendment… “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that the majority ruling “threatens the very essence of a public education” because children go to public school “not to be taught a particular faith, but to be taught ideas that reflect our entire society.”

In other words, what the school appeared to be doing was to define “love” as today’s culture does and actively instruct their definition of ‘love is love’ as the only acceptable truth.

The Mahmood v. Taylor decision reinforces a long-held American principle that parents are responsible to raise their children with the moral and spiritual guidance they deem appropriate even in public schools.

The decision in Mahmood v. Taylor will have a far-reaching effect on parents, their children, and schools all across our country but especially for parents living in blue states who are forced to deal with liberal school boards, administrators, and teachers.

Court Allows Age Verification for Pornography Sites In 2023, Texas passed a law requiring websites to verify the ages of their users when one-third of their site contains “sexual material harmful to minors.” Senior U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the law, ruling it violated an adult’s right to protected speech. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Ezra’s ruling.

Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, saying, “The Texas law is an exercise of the state’s traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective. Adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification.”

Justice Kagan in her dissent stated that the Texas law covers constitutionally protected speech for adults, impedes adults’ ability to view said speech, and imposes a burden to get to that speech. In other words, adults should be able to get to their porn regardless of its harm to children.

Court Ends Nationwide Injunctions In a 6-3 decision in Trump v. Casa, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and with the usual block of female liberal justices dissenting, the Supreme Court put an end to nationwide injunctions by lower court district judges. This is when a single judge can stop the executive branch from enforcing a law, policy, or executive order anywhere in the country. Over 300 active cases have been filed in the first five months of President Trump’s second term to block his executive orders. In his second term, 40 nationwide injunctions have been issued against the president’s executive orders. That’s in addition to the 64 injunctions issued in his first term. That’s double the 54 total nationwide injunctions issued against Presidents Biden, Obama, Clinton, and Bush 2.

Justice Barrett continued, “No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.” Justice Ketanji-Brown is her dissent wrote, “Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.” In what many are considering a rebuke to Justice Brown’s hyperbole, Justice Barrett warned against an “imperial judiciary. She wrote, “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” The cases now return to the lower courts where the district judges will have to rule in compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.