The lawsuit argues Nebraska’s system is unconstitutional: parents get a free education for their kids only if they submit to public school viewpoints on gender, race, and climate — or they pay the full cost themselves.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance is representing the Jacobsen and Menter families of Lincoln, who pulled their children from Lincoln Public Schools after exposure to transgender ideology, critical race theory programming, and climate activism that turned their kids against them.

“Nebraska cannot ban parents from teaching their own children their own values—so instead it penalizes them for exercising that recognized right. But the Constitution does not tolerate that abridgement of parents’ free speech rights.”

The suit argues education is a form of government speech — schools choose teachers, curriculum, textbooks, and which ideas to emphasize. When Nebraska funds only its preferred viewpoint, parents are forced to either accept that messaging or pay to escape it.

That’s a First Amendment violation, according to the filing obtained by The Federalist.

Nebraska law makes it a Class III misdemeanor not to enroll children in some form of school. Parents face up to three months in jail and a $500 fine if they don’t comply.

But while education is legally required, only public school families get the benefits of a free education. Families choosing private schools, religious schools, or homeschooling must cover every dollar themselves.

Nebraska ranks among the worst states in the nation for parental choice. The state offers zero tax credits, scholarships, or education savings accounts that would make alternatives attainable for working families.

The Jacobsen daughter was told she must accommodate biological males in girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms at Lincoln Public Schools. If she felt uncomfortable, she was told to remove herself from those spaces, the lawsuit states.

She was also required to use false pronouns for students claiming to be the opposite gender.

The district exposed the Jacobsen children to programming that labeled some races as oppressors and others as victims based entirely on skin color, according to the suit.

The Menter family pulled two children out after the district displayed stickers endorsing alternative sexuality and transgender ideologies. A school librarian recommended books promoting transgender ideology to one of their children.

Climate change indoctrination was so effective that one Menter child became hostile toward her own parents, demanding they reduce driving because the school taught her carbon dioxide would destroy the planet.

“The government’s education was motivating conduct through fear. Not only that, but the child was coached to take a hostile or disrespectful tone toward adults concerning this topic.”

Both families now face financial strain. They’ve been forced to pay for education costs public school parents never shoulder — or submit to government messaging they fundamentally reject.

Nebraska spent about $19,038 per student in the 2024-2025 school year. Lincoln Public Schools spent about $17,432.

Private elementary school tuition in Nebraska averages $7,100 per year. High school runs about $11,000. Homeschooling costs less in overhead but typically requires one parent to leave the workforce entirely.

The lawsuit cites the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which held the government cannot condition the benefit of a free public education on parents accepting instruction that violates their First Amendment rights.

Another Supreme Court precedent says the unconstitutional conditions doctrine prevents the government from coercing people into surrendering enumerated constitutional rights.

The families are not asking the court to change Lincoln Public Schools’ curriculum or dictate a legislative remedy.

They want the court to declare Nebraska’s system unconstitutional and award them damages equal to the per-pupil funding Lincoln Public Schools receives.

“That formal education is speech is largely undisputable. That parents have the primary right to provide educational speech to their children is legally established,” said Zhonette Brown, general counsel at NCLA. “Courts have long recognized speech rights in the education context, protecting parents’ educational speech is the next logical step.”

The case could set a nationwide precedent for states with zero school choice options — forcing them to either fund alternatives or face constitutional liability.

The Democrat-run state capitulated after the Supreme Court’s Chiles v. Salazar ruling made clear that viewpoint-based speech bans violate the Constitution.

“This is a major victory for children, counselors, and common sense. Kids who are hurting deserve compassion, not a one-way ticket to harmful drugs, hormones, and surgery. Now counselors can offer compassionate counseling without fearing that state bureaucrats will come knocking.”

Luke Goodrich, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the counselors, said Michigan’s surrender confirms that “the Constitution and the best available science are on the side of counselors who help children find peace with their bodies.”

The case, known as Catholic Charities v. Whitmer, dealt with several Michigan-based counselors’ challenge to state laws barring them from engaging in talk therapy with minor clients facing discomfort with their biological sex. The challengers argued that such a prohibition violated their First Amendment rights.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals handed plaintiffs a favorable ruling late last year, which was followed by the Supreme Court’s Chiles decision in March. In that case, the high court ruled 8-1 that a similar Colorado law “regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority:

“[T]he First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”

In Thursday’s stipulated order, Biden-appointed Judge Jane Beckering noted that, in light of the 6th Circuit and Supreme Court’s rulings, the Catholic Charities plaintiffs have “demonstrated success on the merits” of their claim that Michigan’s laws represent an unlawful viewpoint-based restriction on speech.

She further observed that the plaintiffs have “established irreparable injury and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

Both parties agreed to the stipulated order and final judgement, which prohibits Michigan from enforcing the talk therapy ban against counselors in the state.

The court’s permanent injunction took effect immediately, according to the order.

“Michigan is now admitting its law is unconstitutional,” Goodrich said. “Its surrender confirms that the Constitution and the best available science are on the side of counselors who help children find peace with their bodies. States still trying to censor that care should take note.“

Michigan’s agreement to end enforcement of the contested laws is a noticeably different path than that of neighboring Wisconsin.

Months after the Supreme Court handed down its Chiles ruling, Democrat Gov. Tony Evers doubled down on seemingly defying the decision.

“I have no intention of repealing the ban on … conversion therapy on kids. Period. End of story. And no question,” Evers said during a June “Pride Flag Raising” event.

The contrast is clear: Michigan folded when faced with constitutional reality. Wisconsin’s Democrat governor is still fighting.

The ruling targets the Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees Act — the Stop WOKE Act — which Gov. Ron DeSantis signed in 2022 to keep CRT ideology out of Florida classrooms and workplaces.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Florida’s restrictions on CRT in public colleges violate the First Amendment. Two professors, students, and a student group sued, backed by the ACLU and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

“Florida’s salary-for-speech rule is a breathtaking assertion of power to ban unpopular ideas from public discourse in the very places the State’s own statutes recognize as centers of inquiry.”

Judge Britt Grant, a Trump appointee, wrote that opinion. Judge Charles R. Wilson, a Clinton appointee, joined her.

Grant continued: “If the First Amendment offers any boundary of protection at all for public university classrooms, this statute crosses it.”

Critical race theory is a Marxist ideology claiming all American institutions — government, economy, culture — rest on racial hierarchy with whites on top and blacks at the bottom. Even race-neutral policies are secretly racist, CRT adherents argue.

Republicans have been fighting CRT’s spread into schools and workplaces since the 2020 Black Lives Matter summer.

Judge Barbara Lagoa — also a Trump appointee — dissented hard. She argued Florida has every right to regulate what state employees teach in state-funded classrooms.

“The professor-plaintiffs are state employees, and the speech at issue here occurs during their state-sponsored instruction in a course taken for credit by students enrolled in the State’s public universities.”

Lagoa wrote that the majority’s ruling creates an “unworkable” judge-made test that reduces the First Amendment to “judicial preference” — ignoring the state’s legitimate interest in what gets taught in its own classrooms.

“The First Amendment protects all viewpoints in the public square, whether they are conventional or uncontroversial,” Lagoa continued. “But it does not compel all viewpoints to be worthy of state-sponsored endorsement.”

She pointed to Supreme Court precedent: if the government has a compelling interest in eradicating racial discrimination at a private religious university, Florida’s interest in stopping what it deems racial discrimination in its own state classrooms is even stronger.

“We need not agree or disagree with Florida that the viewpoints at issue here constitute racial discrimination; we need only acknowledge that the State is allowed to decide what is endorsed by its professors in its own classrooms,” Lagoa wrote.

The ACLU and FIRE celebrated the ruling.

“Today’s important decision means that college remains a place where professors and students are allowed to debate controversial topics — even if politicians disagree with them,” FIRE senior attorney Greg H. Greubel said.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier fired back on X, calling the ruling “totally incoherent and inconsistent with the intent of the First Amendment.”

He praised Lagoa: “Barbara Lagoa may be the best jurist in our country. She should be on SCOTUS.”

The split decision leaves Florida an opening to seek a rehearing or appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

The case is Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors of the State University System, No. 22-13992 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Barbara Lagoa may be the best jurist in our country.

She should be on SCOTUS.

— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) July 7, 2026

According to the CA11 panel majority, public university professors have a First Amendment right to teach white supremacy and critical race theory, and the legislature cannot pass laws that say otherwise.

Totally incoherent and inconsistent with the intent of the First Amendment. https://t.co/mwj1ha7wJO

— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) July 7, 2026

The award honors the supreme pontiff “for his lifelong work promoting religious liberty and freedom of conscience and expression around the world — ideals enshrined by America’s founders in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” according to the National Constitution Center.

Speaking from the Vatican in a 10-minute acceptance speech Friday, Leo opened by identifying as “a son of this great country” and invoking the Declaration of Independence.

“I would just like to recall the words signed by the founding fathers of the nation 250 years ago in Philadelphia, in the Declaration of Independence, when they said that, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident,’ that all men have received fundamental rights from our Creator. And they include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The Holy Father went on to pray that those values “continue to inspire all of us, in the United States and throughout the world.”

The Liberty Medal — awarded annually to “men and women of courage and conviction who strive to secure the blessings of liberty for people around the globe” — had been presented to Leo during a private April 30 ceremony at the Vatican. Friday’s public event in Philadelphia was moved indoors to the National Constitution Center due to extreme heat.

Previous recipients include Presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, along with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy, and imprisoned Catholic pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai.

The pope praised America’s founding — and challenged the nation to live up to it.

“As every American knows, however, the path to building a society that would embody those high ideals of liberty and justice for all was not always easy and, in many respects, is still a work in progress,” Leo said. “Indeed, the effort to realize this vision is one that must be taken up anew in each generation and in the face of ever new challenges.”

Accepting the 38th Liberty Medal from the U.S. National Constitution Center, Pope Leo prayed that the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States would be an occasion for a solemn recommitment to the fundamental ideals on which the country was founded, especially life… pic.twitter.com/0ov7HyylSe

— Vatican News (@VaticanNews) July 3, 2026

The first American pope then turned to the first right named in the Declaration: life.

“No one who is deprived of life can enjoy liberty or pursue happiness,” Leo observed. “A country’s vitality is deeply tied to the value it affords to human life in every form and condition, acknowledging the dignity endowed upon every human person by virtue of their very existence.”

He reaffirmed the need for laws which “recognize and safeguard this gift from the moment of conception to natural death.”

A country’s vitality is deeply tied to the value it affords to human life in every form and condition, acknowledging the dignity endowed upon every human person by virtue of their very existence. The moral greatness of a nation is manifested, above all, in its capacity to…

— Pope Leo XIV (@Pontifex) July 3, 2026

“In this regard, the moral greatness of a nation is manifested, above all, in its capacity to support, protect and cherish the lives of all, especially the most vulnerable and those whose worth is questioned,” the Holy Father added.

On liberty, Leo said authentic freedom is “founded upon the human person’s capacity to know the truth and adhere to what is good, even at great cost — a sacrifice well known to many who have labored to shape this country.”

Authentic freedom is founded upon the human person’s capacity to know the truth and adhere to what is good, even at great cost.https://t.co/kQQ55yFbYK

— Pope Leo XIV (@Pontifex) July 3, 2026

The pope praised America’s tradition of religious liberty for facilitating “interfaith dialogue and interreligious cooperation in promoting the public good.”

He characterized the U.S. as a nation “united not by goals bound to momentary endeavors, but by ideals that do not fade with the passing of time.”

The award follows perceived tension between the Vatican and the Trump administration.

Trump lambasted Leo as “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” during an April 12 tirade on Truth Social, following perceived opposition to the president’s approach to denying Iran a nuclear weapon.

Leo responded the following day, appearing to dismiss media narratives of a rift between the two Americans.

“The things that I say are certainly not meant as attacks on anyone, and the message of the Gospel is very clear: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers,'” the pope said. “I have no fear of the Trump administration, or speaking out loudly of the message of the Gospel, which is what I believe I am here to do, what the Church is here to do.”

The pope has since continued dialogue with the Trump administration, warmly welcoming Secretary of State Marco Rubio to the Vatican for a May 7 meeting.

Thank you to our partners and supporters for their contributions to this historic moment.

Watch a full recording of the ceremony: https://t.co/oBI2vndDWupic.twitter.com/x50HerDEcR

— National Constitution Center (@ConstitutionCtr) July 3, 2026

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released a June 25 letter from the Holy Father to the American people echoing the celebratory sentiments of his Liberty Medal remarks.

Read the full letter at: https://t.co/wY6dtgk42d

— U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (@USCCB) July 3, 2026

“Congratulations on this extraordinary national anniversary,” the pope’s letter ends. “May the spirit of 1776 continue to inspire hope and unity as the United States of America moves into the future.”

Sam O’Hara walked behind the troops blasting the iconic Darth Vader theme in protest of their deployment. Metropolitan Police Department officers detained him, triggering the lawsuit.

Under the settlement, the District resolved claims against MPD officers. But the case continues against Ohio National Guard Sgt. Devon Beck, who allegedly summoned police to stop the protest.

“The government’s efforts to silence me ultimately backfired and brought more attention to the unjust deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C.”

O’Hara said the settlement “serves as a reminder that constitutional freedoms are worth defending, especially when those in power would prefer we stay quiet.”

The lawsuit centers on whether Beck violated O’Hara’s free speech rights by calling police on the peaceful protest. The settlement amount was not disclosed, but O’Hara’s legal team described it as significant.

The case raises questions about military overreach and the right to protest government deployments in the nation’s capital.

Interesting: D.C. will pay an undisclosed settlement to resident Sam O'Hara, who was handcuffed by MPD for playing the "Imperial March" tune from Star Wars while walking behind National Guard troops in the city last September, per @ACLU_DC. O'Hara was detained for 20 minutes. pic.twitter.com/mwGewNSFMf

— Martin Austermuhle (@maustermuhle) June 26, 2026

Nearly ten years ago, Kaepernick kneeled for the anthem and the left’s corporate press rallied to his defense. The San Francisco Chronicle ran headlines declaring Kaepernick “absolutely has a constitutional right” to express his opinion. The New York Times published multiple pieces framing his protest as an exercise of First Amendment freedoms.

Then-President Obama told reporters Kaepernick was exercising his constitutional right, noting “a long history of sports figures making political statements.”

But when Giants pitchers added Scripture references to their hats Friday night, that same constitutional protection vanished.

“I’m thankful we live in a country where we have the freedom to believe what we want, and express what we want.”

One pitcher explained the verses carried no hate at all — just a statement of faith. He noted the rainbow is a symbol of God’s covenant and promise in Scripture.

The San Francisco Chronicle — the same outlet that once celebrated Kaepernick’s “constitutional right” — published a column by Ann Killion with the headline: “Giants pitchers didn’t just deface Pride uniforms. They alienated their fans and city.”

Killion wrote that the pitchers “decided to say a giant F-you to a good chunk of their fan base” and accused them of taking “a decidedly un-Christian stance of exclusion and judgment.” She labeled the pitchers “homophobic.”

The Athletic, a New York Times subsidiary, ran a piece titled “Giants pitchers’ Bible verses on Pride Night caps show how they’ve missed the point.” Writer Grant Brisbee claimed the pitchers made the night about “us versus them” and blamed them for creating conditions where LGBTQIA+ individuals feel “without value” or face assault.

The pitchers didn’t stop anyone from participating in Pride Night. They didn’t harm anyone. They didn’t prevent gay people from watching baseball. They simply expressed sincerely held religious beliefs.

The pattern is clear: the left didn’t champion Kaepernick because of deep commitment to the First Amendment. They championed him because they agreed with his message — that America is fundamentally racist and unjust. The First Amendment defense was a shield for an unpopular protest.

Now that athletes express views outside left-wing orthodoxy, the same First Amendment defense has disappeared. The same crowd that loved athletic activism suddenly hates it.

They never loved athletic activism. Just athletes who agreed with them.