
The Supreme Court threatens to bring 'Don't Say Gay' to every classroom in America
Remember Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' law?
The unconstitutionally vague law imposed such unclear restrictions on teachers who speak about sexual orientation or gender identity that many feared they could be fired merely for mentioning their spouses. Eventually, Florida agreed to a settlement which affirmed its right to do things like excluding Harvey Milk from the state history curriculum, but which also clarified that teachers may refer to the concept of being gay.
SCOTUS, Explained
Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Now, however, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could impose a regime similar to Florida's original Don't Say Gay law on every public school in the country. The plaintiffs in Mahmoud v. Taylor — a group of Muslim and Christian parents — don't specifically ask the justices to ban discussions of homosexuality or gender identity from classrooms. Instead, they seek a right to be notified if their children are about to be taught from certain books they claim contain LGBTQ themes, as well as an opportunity to opt those children out of the lessons.
To grant this request, they want the Court to embrace a legal rule that would place such heavy obligations on teachers who discuss these topics that it is unclear whether they would practically be able to do so. Furthermore, even if public schools tried to comply with these disclosure requirements, they are so burdensome that doing so would likely be impossible.
The case arises out of a Maryland school district's decision to approve a handful of books with LGBTQ themes for use in public school classrooms. While the plaintiffs and the school district appear to agree that some books that focus on queer characters were approved for some purpose, they can't seem to agree on any of the other facts of the case.
The plaintiffs, who are represented by the Becket Fund, an influential legal organization that often represents conservative Catholic causes, list seven books in their brief that they claim the school district approved for classroom use (though the brief acknowledges that two were later withdrawn). The district's brief, by contrast, claims that only five books are at issue. Only three books appear on both parties' lists.
Indeed, as a federal appeals court that heard this case complained, the case record contains no information 'about how any teacher or school employee has actually used any of the Storybooks in the Parents' children's classrooms, how often the Storybooks are actually being used, what any child has been taught in conjunction with their use, or what conversations have ensued about their themes.'
It is quite odd that the highest Court in the nation decided to weigh in on this case before the lower courts have even determined what the case is actually about, especially given it's not even clear that these books have been used in any classroom instruction whatsoever.
The Court's decision to prematurely take up the Mahmoud case, however, is consistent with the current crop of justices' past behavior, which has favored religious — especially Christian — causes.
Just one month after Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation gave the Republican Party a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, five of the Court's Republicans handed down a sweeping decision that revolutionized the Court's approach to religion, giving individuals who object to laws on religious grounds a broad new right to ignore those laws. And that's just one of many decisions the Court has handed down since then which benefit conservative Christian causes.
Related The Supreme Court is leading a Christian conservative revolution
The Court's Republican majority has appeared quite impatient to remake the law to be much more favorable to the religious right. Still, the legal rule Becket seeks in Mahmoud would be so disruptive to public schools that teachers and administrators can only hope that the justices stay their hand in this case.
The Mahmoud plaintiffs would impose impossible obligations on public schools
The First Amendment does not permit laws — or school district policies, for that matter — 'prohibiting the free exercise' of religion. The key word here is 'prohibiting.' As the Supreme Court said in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery (1988), the Constitution's free exercise clause targets government actions that tend 'to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs.'
It's certainly possible to imagine LGBTQ-focused classroom instructions that could violate this rule against coercion. If a teacher required a student who believes that being gay is a sin to write an essay repudiating that belief, for example, that would be unconstitutional. It would also likely be unconstitutional to require this student to read aloud from a pro-gay text.
So it is possible that, once the Mahmoud case is fully litigated and the facts are known, that courts will discover that some of the plaintiffs' rights were violated. Because the Supreme Court took this case up before any of that could happen, however, there is no way to know if the school district complied with the Constitution.
Becket's brief seeks to bypass the normal litigation process and instead impose a new obligation on public schools. Schools, they argue, must notify parents if their children will receive 'instruction on gender and sexuality in violation of their parents' religious beliefs,' and give those parents an opportunity to opt their child out of that instruction.
If it were possible to limit this obligation solely to the plaintiffs in this case, then it might at least be logistically feasible for schools to comply with Becket's proposed rule. But the Constitution does not permit schools to provide a service to people with anti-LGBTQ religious beliefs that it does not also provide to any other person of faith.
Imagine, for example, that a public school offers kosher lunches to Jewish students who request one. Barring extenuating circumstances, it must also offer halal lunches to Muslim students, because the government cannot discriminate against Muslims and in favor of Jews.
The same rule also applies to students with idiosyncratic religious beliefs. Suppose that a school has a dress code which requires all students to wear white shirts. If one student's religion compels him to wear red shirts, and the school permits this student to do so, it must also allow another student from a blue-shirt-wearing religion to depart from the dress code.
This rule against discrimination has profound implications, if Becket's clients prevail. If a school gives a particular accommodation to people with one set of religious beliefs — the belief that their children should not be exposed to literature with LGBTQ characters — then it must provide this same accommodation to any other person with a religious objection to how the school operates.
If Becket's rule were implemented, in other words, every public school would have to provide advance notice to any parent about any lesson that might offend that parent's religious views. But, in a nation as religiously diverse as the United States, it is simply not possible for public schools to comply with such an obligation.
Consider, for example, Bowen v. Roy (1986), a case involving parents who objected, on religious grounds, to the government's decision to issue a Social Security number to their daughter. According to the Court's opinion in Bowen, the girl's father believed that 'he must keep her person and spirit unique, and that the uniqueness of the Social Security number as an identifier' would ''rob the spirit' of his daughter.'
Under Becket's framework, this parent could legally say that he needed to be notified — and allowed to object — before any attempt was made by a school district to assign a unique identification number to his daughter, and other parents might need to be given an opportunity to opt their children out of the school's internal record-keeping system also.
Consider, as well, a federal appeals court's opinion in Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education (1987), a case very similar to Mahmoud where the appeals court rejected parents' attempt to opt their children out of lessons they disagreed with on religious grounds. Unlike the parents in Mahmoud, however, the parents in Mozert had much broader religious objections. One of them opposed lessons that touched on themes as diverse as 'evolution and 'secular humanism,'' 'futuristic supernaturalism,' 'pacifism, magic and false views of death.'
Under Becket's proposed rule, in other words, schools must provide advance notice if their child will be exposed to works of fantasy like The Chronicles of Narnia or the Harry Potter series, to lessons about famous pacifists like Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., to the concept of death, or to 'secular humanism' — however it was defined.
Indeed, if you spend enough time reading old legal cases brought by people of faith, it's possible to uncover a nearly infinite variety of religious believers that, under the Constitution, must be treated with the same dignity and given the same rights as Becket's clients in the Mahmoud case. If public schools were required to provide advance notice of any lesson that might offend any parent's religious views, they would be overwhelmed by this obligation.
Parents would be deluged with paperwork informing them of every minor detail of any upcoming lesson. Teachers would face the impossible task of tracking which students must be shielded from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which students cannot be assigned an ID number, which students must be excused from lessons on the civil rights movement, and which students must never read a book where two women hold hands. And woe betide the poor educator who, without first warning their students' parents, makes a spontaneous remark that might offend someone's religious beliefs.
As Justice Robert Jackson warned in a 1948 concurring opinion, 'if we are to eliminate everything that is objectionable to any of these warring sects or inconsistent with any of their doctrines, we will leave public education in shreds.'
Becket's proposed rule is unworkable even in a limited form
Perhaps recognizing that it would be impossible for schools to inform parents of every single lesson that might offend some person's religious views, Becket spends much of its brief arguing that lessons concerning gender and sexuality are special. They even make the extravagant claim that 'no state has ever affirmatively denied parents access to information and opportunity to opt-their child out from instruction on gender and sexuality.'
The idea that children are not routinely exposed to stories about gender and sexuality would baffle anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Disney canon. Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella are all romances about women who marry princes. Some of the most famous, and widely taught, works of literature are musings on gender and sexuality. Think of the first line of Pride and Prejudice: 'It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.'
But let's assume that the Court decides to create a narrowly gerrymandered rule that gives the Mahmoud plaintiffs what they appear to want — advance warning and a right to opt their children out from any exposure to queer gender or sexuality. Even this relatively narrow rule would be a logistical nightmare for public schools, for the simple reason that teachers cannot possibly anticipate everything that will happen in their classrooms and advise parents of it in advance.
Suppose, for example, that during a civics lesson on the structure of America's executive branch of government, a student raises their hand and asks whether any members of President Donald Trump's Cabinet are gay. Is the teacher required to halt the lesson, and immediately call every child's parents to notify them, before they reveal the forbidden knowledge that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is a gay man?
Or suppose that a teacher asks their students to read a novel of their own choosing and deliver an oral report on that book to the entire class. Must that teacher also call a halt to a student's book report if the student selects the book Less, a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about a gay writer?
As a practical matter, the only way a school could comply with an obligation to inform parents of any instruction that touches on queer gender or sexuality would be to ban spontaneous discussion of these topics from the classroom altogether. What Becket is asking for is a 'Don't Say Gay' rule on steroids.
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to decide cases before they know what they are about
The Constitution limits the federal judiciary's jurisdiction to 'cases' and 'controversies' where one or more parties can articulate a concrete legal dispute with another party. For nearly all of American history, this provision has been understood to prevent the courts from answering hypothetical questions. When the Washington administration submitted a list of questions to the Supreme Court concerning the new nation's treaty obligations to France, the justices responded with a letter informing President George Washington that they could not answer these questions unless they arose in a proper lawsuit.
One important reason for this rule is that, when judges decide cases involving very particular facts, they can tailor those decisions to the specific dispute between the two parties. Instead of handing down a sweeping, quasi-legislative decree that all public schools are now bound by unworkable disclosure rules, they can craft a legal rule that vindicates a plaintiff's constitutional rights without doing unnecessary harm to institutions.
That is how the Mahmoud case should proceed. The Supreme Court should send it back to the lower courts without a decision — a process known as dismissing the case as 'improvidently granted' — to allow those courts to figure out what is actually going on in this case. Again, it is entirely possible that some of the Mahmoud plaintiffs' rights were violated by their children's school district, and if that is the case then the courts should provide them with appropriate relief.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
22 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump, Obama and the Question of Treason
President Trump believes that President Barack Obama committed treason, a crime that may be punishable by death. Seeking a distraction from his current political travails, Mr. Trump is attempting to relitigate the nearly decade-old controversy over Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Mr. Trump is wrong on the facts and the law, and his sensational allegation serves only to demonstrate how completely he has degraded contemporary political discourse. Mr. Trump denounced Mr. Obama after Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, asked the Justice Department to investigate whether intelligence officials in the Obama administration faked evidence of Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. When the question of who should be targeted in the investigation was posed at an Oval Office press availability, Mr. Trump said: 'It would be President Obama. He started it. … This was treason. This was every word you can think of. They tried to steal the election. They tried to obfuscate the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined, even in other countries.' Mr. Trump also mentioned former President Joe Biden, former F.B.I. Director James Comey, the former director of national intelligence James Clapper and former C.I.A. Director John Brennan as other possible defendants. President Trump's history of intemperate remarks has earned him a perverse kind of immunity; the more outrageous his statement, the faster it is often dismissed. But Mr. Trump doesn't deserve this bloviator's privilege. He's not just the president, but, more to the point, he's the overseer of an unusually compliant Justice Department, and his offhand condemnation of his predecessor is as significant as it is chilling. Indeed, Mr. Trump made sure that the investigation of purported treason swiftly took on a life of its own. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that a Justice Department 'strike force' would investigate the allegations against Mr. Obama and the others, and a pair of Republican senators, Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn, have called for the appointment of a special counsel to lead the inquiry. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, and it's set out there, in relevant part, as giving 'aid and comfort' to our enemies. Regurgitating a claim that Mr. Trump and his allies have made for years, Ms. Gabbard said that President Obama, after Hillary Clinton was defeated by President Trump in the 2016 election, 'directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘We've already done that': Missouri lawmakers show little enthusiasm for new congressional maps
Members of the Missouri House review a proposed Congressional map during redistricting debate on Jan. 18, 2022 (photo courtesy of Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications). As Texas embarks on a special legislative session that includes revising that state's congressional districts to help Republicans, President Donald Trump is reportedly asking for Missouri to do the same. The reaction among legislative leaders, however, is decidedly negative. Asked by text about a report from Punchbowl News on a new redistricting effort, state Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O'Laughlin responded with a horror emoji. 'I know this is a topic being talked about in Washington,' she added, 'but no one has asked us to do anything about redistricting.' Punchbowl reported that U.S. Rep. Bob Onder of Lake St. Louis was at the White House on Tuesday and came away convinced Trump's advisors want Missouri to act. 'The president's team is serious about it,' Onder said to Punchbowl. Missouri has eight seats in the U.S. House, six held by Republicans and two held by Democrats — the same total and partisan division it has had since a seat was lost after the 2010 census. Missouri Senate Minority Leader Doug Beck of Affton said Democrats would fight any effort to change district lines that were just redrawn three years ago. 'This originated out of the White House,' Beck said. 'This is a blatant power grab by an administration desperate to deflect from their cover up of the Epstein files and other things going on.' We've already done that. To do it again would be out of character with the way Missouri operates. – Chad Perkins, speaker pro tem of the Missouri House The 435 seats in the U.S. House are allotted to the states every 10 years based on census results. When Missouri receives its allotment, the state Constitution mandates that lawmakers revise district lines. The last time lines were redrawn between censuses was in the 1960s, following the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that districts had to be drawn as closely as possible in population to preserve equal representation, known as the one person, one vote decision. In 2022, when the current districts were drawn, Republican leaders in the Missouri Senate had to resort to little-used maneuvers to outwit opponents within their caucus who wanted to break up the 5th District and push the partisan split to 7-1. The 5th District, which includes Kansas City and sections of Jackson and Clay counties, has been Democratic for decades. U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who has held the seat since 2005, was re-elected in November with 60% of the vote. Splitting those votes into adjacent districts, while bringing in enough Republican votes to carry the district, isn't as certain as it may seem to aid the GOP, said state Sen. Mike Cierpiot, a Republican from Lee's Summit. 'There's a lot of Democrats in Jackson County,' Cierpiot said, 'and if it's a map that they promote that, once again, puts two or three of our Republican seats in play in a bad year, I would have trouble supporting that.' The 2022 fight over redistricting came during a four-year period where hard-right conservatives in the state Senate fought almost daily with GOP leadership and its backers. This year, Republicans finally forged a truce that helped make their supermajority, holding two-thirds of the seats, far more effective in moving priority legislation. The fight over redistricting was colored as much by personalities as policy, said U.S. Rep. Eric Burlison, a Republican from Springfield who won the 7th District seat in 2022. Then-state Sen. Bill Eigel of St. Charles, leader of the insurgents, couldn't convince anyone that a 7-1 map was possible and safe for Republicans because of his personal conflicts with the leadership, Burlison said in an interview on Thursday with The Independent. 'It was more about people's personalities than what were the facts,' said Burlison, a state senator at the time. 'What was achievable in that session was marked by that.' Tempers fray as Missouri Senate Republicans fight over Congressional map The conflict was so bad that Eigel and Cierpiot nearly came to blows during a lunch break. It wasn't the only moment where violence was possible, Burlison said. 'There were multiple moments where it almost came close,' he said. In the Missouri House, where it is easier for leadership to shut down debate and quash factionalism, a top Republican leader said there's no reason to revisit the current map. 'We do redistricting every 10 years,' House Speaker Pro Tem Chad Perkins of Bowling Green said. 'We've already done that. To do it again would be out of character with the way Missouri operates.' There may be some willingness to try a new redistricting effort. Cierpiot said he could support it if he is convinced Republicans would not lose seats in years favoring Democrats. But it could backfire, he said. 'Right now, in Missouri, we're in a Republican wonderland,' Cierpiot said. 'We've had decent years, and we haven't had an off year since probably 2008, but I'm old enough to remember those things do cycle through.' State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from Arnold, enthusiastically backs the idea. 'We should have written a 7-1 map' in 2022, she said. 'Our failure to do so almost cost the GOP the majority in Congress. I'm up for it.' It is encouraging, Beck said, that most Republican comments are opposed to the idea of redistricting again. But pressure could change that. 'I don't know how much they're gonna get pushed to change those views,' he said. 'I've watched these people say things before and then change their mind.' There are a lot of legal questions, involving both the federal and state constitutions, that will be played out in the courts in states that try to redraw lines set after the 2020 census, said Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. Levitt, who monitors redistricting efforts nationwide and was deputy attorney general for civil rights at the end of President Barack Obama's administration, said a redistricting effort in Missouri would create legal issues over minority voter rights. Both of Missouri's Democratic members of Congress, Cleaver and U.S. Rep. Wesley Bell of St. Louis, are Black. To gain a seat, 'you'd have to effectively target the minority communities of St. Louis and Kansas City,' Levitt said. It would also create problems because the stated goal is to increase Republican representation in Congress, he said. 'The Supreme Court has said with crystal clarity that excessive partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, that it is inconsistent with basic democratic principles,' Levitt said. 'It said that in the same breath that it also said that the federal courthouse doors are closed to adjudicating that claim, but just because the cops are not outside your door doesn't mean shoplifting is legal.' Missouri's constitution is silent on whether lawmakers have the power to redraw lines outside the 10-year cycle of the census. That silence, Levitt said, would have to be interpreted by the courts. 'Other states have construed that constitutional time in their own state constitutions to say, once every 10 years and no more frequently,' he said. With a 219-212 majority — four seats are vacant, including three previously held by Democrats — Republicans are worried that a small shift in voter sentiment could put them again in the minority. Texas, with a 25-13 split in favor Republicans, is looking at possibly moving five seats to the Republican column, according to the Texas Tribune. It took a telephone call from Trump to Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott to get it on the special session agenda amid concerns that GOP voters might be spread too thin. In retaliation, California Gov. Gavin Newsome has threatened to redraw that state's 52 districts, currently 43-9 in favor of Democrats, to counter the Texas move. So did New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, who told reporters Monday that it's 'too early' to make a definitive statement on the issue, the New Jersey Globe reported, adding he would speak to other Democratic governors about redistricting. With Missouri now involved, it is clear that Trump is looking everywhere he can for new GOP seats, Levitt said. 'They're casting a wide net,' he said. 'The president seems to be abundantly nervous, and it wouldn't surprise me that he is in desperation, looking wherever he can.' Congressional districts are already gerrymandered so the result isn't in question, Beck said. It is already hurting the country and redistricting between censuses makes it worse, he added. U.S. Rep. Ann Wagner, who represents the 2nd District in eastern Missouri, received 54.5% of the vote in November and is the only member of Congress from either party in the state who did not win 60% or more of the vote. 'There's only a select few seats that are actually up for grabs ever. The other ones are safe,' Beck said. 'They've done this over time, and it's a shame. Now the politicians pick their voters, instead of the voters pick their politicians.'


CNN
5 hours ago
- CNN
Trump releases long-awaited executive order on college athletics. It's not the quick fix the White House promised
President Donald Trump on Thursday signed a long-anticipated executive order on college sports, an attempt to provide federal guidance to the wild world of big money that has transformed collegiate athletics in recent years. The executive order signed by Trump said it is executive branch policy 'that third-party, pay-for-play payments to collegiate athletes are improper and should not be permitted by universities,' while it specifically allowing endorsement deals. It did not lay out a specific enforcement mechanism. But those expecting the administration to suddenly provide the guardrails and rules that have been sorely lacking in college sports in recent years will likely come away disappointed. The order aims to preserve and expand college sports, citing their unique place in American culture and how vital they are to American success in the Olympics. But it appears to fall short of what some in athletic departments around the country would have hoped: Clear federal guidance that would put an end to the chaos wrought by the name, image and likeness (NIL) deals that were deemed acceptable by the Supreme Court and the rampant transfers that have shaken college sports. 'It is the policy of my Administration that all college sports should be preserved and, where possible, expanded,' reads the order. 'My Administration will therefore provide the stability, fairness, and balance necessary to protect student-athletes, collegiate athletic scholarships and opportunities, and the special American institution of college sports. It is common sense that college sports are not, and should not be, professional sports, and my Administration will take action accordingly.' While the White House's fact sheet stated the executive order 'saves college sports,' the language itself does not implement any immediate changes. The order posits that athletic departments with more than $125 million in revenue during the last athletic season should provide more scholarship opportunities than in 2024-25 in non-revenue sports (sports that do not turn a profit and are typically subsidized with money earned from football and basketball) and provide the maximum number of roster spots permitted. Departments with more than $50 million in revenue during last year's athletic season should provide at least as many roster spots as last year and the maximum under the rules. Departments that made less than $50 million should not shrink scholarship opportunities or roster spots in non-revenue generating sports. The order also states that any revenue sharing agreement worked out between athletes and schools should be done in a way that 'preserves or expands scholarships and collegiate athletic opportunities in women's and non-revenue sports.' While the order also states that third-party, play-for-play payments to athletes should not be permitted, it notes that policy doesn't apply to payments that an athlete receives at a fair-market value from a separate party, such as a brand endorsement, according to the order. The NCAA already modified rules to address some of the points spelled out in the order. On the third-party payments, the NCAA's Division I Board of Directors in April moved to create oversight of all NIL deals over $600 and rules around what to do if a NIL deal is 'determined not to have been made with the purpose of using a student-athlete's NIL to advance a valid business purpose and/or is determined to have been made outside a reasonable range of compensation.' NCAA president Charlie Baker said in a statement that the organization appreciates Trump's order but Congress has to be the one that makes the most important changes. 'The NCAA is making positive changes for student-athletes and confronting many challenges facing college sports by mandating health and wellness benefits and guaranteeing scholarships, but there are some threats to college sports that federal legislation can effectively address and the Association is advocating with student-athletes and their schools for a bipartisan solution with Congress and the Administration,' Baker's statement reads. 'The Association appreciates the Trump Administration's focus on the life-changing opportunities college sports provides millions of young people and we look forward to working with student-athletes, a bipartisan coalition in Congress and the Trump Administration to enhance college sports for years to come.' While the order sets out the administration's policies, it does not have any enforcement mechanism. It also uses the word 'should' 10 times – binding federal laws and executive orders with enforcement mechanisms typically use the word 'shall.' Republican Reps. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, Tim Walberg of Michigan and Jim Jordan of Ohio – the chairs of the Energy and Commerce committee, Education and Workforce committee and Judiciary Committee respectively – thanked Trump for the order but urged their colleagues to pass a law enshinring changes. 'We thank President Trump for his commitment to supporting student-athletes and strengthening college athletics in the NIL era. The SCORE Act, led by our three committees, will complement the President's executive order, and we look forward to working with all of our colleagues in Congress to build a stronger and more durable college sports environment,' the statement read. Where the text does lay out specific orders, it calls on administration officials to develop plans for implementation. Within 30 days, Education Secretary Linda McMahon – in consultation with Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson – 'shall develop a plan to advance the policies' set forth in the order 'through all available and appropriate regulatory, enforcement, and litigation mechanisms.' Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer and the National Labor Relations Board are ordered to 'determine and implement the appropriate measures with respect to clarifying the status of collegiate athletes, including through guidance, rules, or other appropriate actions, that will maximize the educational benefits and opportunities provided by higher education institutions through athletics.' The order also directs Bondi and Ferguson to work on a report within 60 days on how best to protect college athletics from antitrust lawsuits.