logo
The Supreme Court threatens to bring 'Don't Say Gay' to every classroom in America

The Supreme Court threatens to bring 'Don't Say Gay' to every classroom in America

Vox15-04-2025
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship blocked by another federal appeals judge in latest ruling
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship blocked by another federal appeals judge in latest ruling

Fox News

time6 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship blocked by another federal appeals judge in latest ruling

A federal appeals judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people in the country illegally or temporarily. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration's effort to end birthright citizenship that he issued earlier this year and that was granted to more than a dozen states can stand. Sorokin said the ruling was an exception to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limited lower courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. The issue is expected to return to the Supreme Court. Trump and the administration "are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question," Sorokin wrote in his ruling. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." The Trump administration has argued that children born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally and temporarily are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. Trump signed the birthright citizenship executive order, along with a slew of other orders, on his first day in office in January. On Wednesday, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed the lower court's nationwide injunction, and, earlier this month, a New Hampshire federal judge issued a ruling prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. Sorokin disagreed with the Trump administration's argument that the Supreme Court's ruling warranted a narrower ruling. The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit argued that Trump's executive order is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, and it also threatens millions of dollars in state funding for "essential" health insurance services contingent on citizenship status.

Is anyone going to stop a looming death spiral in Gaza?
Is anyone going to stop a looming death spiral in Gaza?

Vox

timean hour ago

  • Vox

Is anyone going to stop a looming death spiral in Gaza?

covers politics Vox. She first joined Vox in 2019, and her work has also appeared in Politico, Washington Monthly, and the New Republic. Palestinians carrying pans gather to receive hot meals, distributed by a charity organization in Gaza City, where residents are struggling to access food due to the ongoing Israeli blockade and attacks on July 23, 2025. Khames Alrefi/Anadolu via Getty Images Gaza is on the brink of a mass starvation crisis, and once it starts, it will be difficult if not impossible to stop. The Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip has faced various levels of food insecurity throughout the war that Israel has waged on the territory since Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack, fluctuating with the amount of aid Israel has allowed to enter the enclave via checkpoints it controls. In March 2024, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) — the primary organization tracking food insecurity worldwide — issued a warning that every resident of Gaza was at risk of crisis levels of food insecurity, and half were at risk of famine. (Crisis levels are reached when a population has 'food consumption gaps alongside acute malnutrition' or is 'only just able to meet their food needs, resorting to crisis coping strategies like selling off essential livelihood assets.' Famine is the most serious form of hunger, involving a complete lack of access to food and resulting starvation and death.) A famine was never officially declared, and food access peaked during the negotiated ceasefire reached in January. In March, Israel cut off all shipments into the Gaza Strip, including food aid, when the ceasefire expired. Israel justified it as a tactical strategy to get Hamas to release more Israeli hostages as part of continuing negotiations. The flow of humanitarian aid has since slowed to a trickle under the purview of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private group backed by the US and Israeli governments. It began operating in May, and is the sole entity that has been allowed to deliver food. Almost one-third of the 2.1 million people remaining in Gaza are not eating for multiple days in a row, according to the United Nations World Food Programme. Israel has also made it treacherous for hungry Gazans to even access food from the GHF. The UN estimates that the Israeli military has killed more than 1,000 Palestinians trying to get aid in Gaza since May. There are four GHF distribution centers throughout Gaza, three of which are in areas where the Israeli military has issued evacuation orders, and they are often only open for short periods of time, sometimes spurring crowds to rush to get provisions. After enduring more than 21 months in a war zone with inadequate nutrition, the population of Gaza is worn down, and humanitarian groups say that imminent famine will likely cause many to die — not just from hunger, but also from preventable disease that their bodies can no longer fight off. To understand how Gaza got to this point and what happens next, I spoke with Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International, an organization that advocates for humanitarian assistance and protection for displaced people. Our conversation below has been edited for length and clarity. How has access to food in Gaza changed throughout the course of the war? What happened from really almost the start of the war through all of last year was a population that was hovering right at the edge of a starvation emergency, but never quite dipping fully into it. The Israeli government had been hugely restricting aid through January and February of 2024. The warning of potential famine came out in early March [2024], and then they subsequently allowed a great deal more aid in in April, and the situation improved. Some of the concessions that the Israelis then made in late March into April, and somewhat beyond that, really did make a meaningful difference. And then the Rafah offensive started in May, and things worsened again after that. The period of the ceasefire [beginning in January 2025] was the best period for aid access since the war began. For six weeks, hundreds of aid trucks were coming in every day. There was relative freedom of movement and freedom of operation for aid organizations who previously had been heavily, heavily constricted by [Israel Defense Forces] operations and permission structures. There was always just enough that would be allowed in to prevent the kind of full-blown famine outcomes that I think we're now beginning to see. Why is the population of Gaza now on the brink of starvation? If you fully cut someone off [from food] when they are otherwise in good health, it's going to take longer for them to deteriorate. If they have spent a year-plus being one step removed from starvation, then they're much more vulnerable. Another shock to their system has the risk to be much, much more damaging. I think that's what we're now seeing, when Israel withdrew from the ceasefire in March and imposed a total, complete, hermetic blockade on Gaza. There was, for a while, enough residual aid that had been brought in during the population could stretch that out and and make do for a while before the deprivation really started to bite again. I would argue what we're seeing is still effectively an extension of that blockade, because the primary aid that Israel has been allowing in is through this Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which is not a meaningful factor in terms of the hunger situation in Gaza. The amounts they've been letting in are vanishingly small. This Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is distributing modest amounts of very poor quality aid to, as far as we can tell, a pretty limited number of people: the ones who happen to be able to get to their sites, which is not most of the population. The cost of a bag of flour has gone up from 50 shekels during the ceasefire earlier this year to over 1,700 now. What happens if famine sets in now? When you have a population that is that stressed, whose health has deteriorated that much, or is [already] in such an advanced state of population-level food deprivation and malnutrition, then things can turn bad very rapidly, because there is nothing to stand in the way of starvation. We have seen this kind of a trajectory in other settings before. Once people's coping mechanisms are exhausted, once their food and financial reserves are exhausted, once their bodies are in a very weakened state due to sustained malnutrition over a long period of time, then it doesn't take much to kill someone. It is very hard for your body to fight off disease or survive an injury, or even just survive. In most famines, we see mortality coming from a mix of both outright starvation and opportunistic infections. So people's bodies are greatly weakened, and they can't fight off diseases that would otherwise be very survivable. There is nothing coming on the horizon to improve that situation unless the Israeli government allows the mainstream professional humanitarian community to actually do their fucking jobs, and that is the one thing they will not allow. Famines have a momentum, and the longer that they are allowed to deepen, the harder they are to reverse. You need your standard food aid package distributed at scale. But you also need specialized, fortified food products, because people are in such an advanced state of malnutrition. You need advanced therapeutic malnutrition treatment, because a lot more people are now going to be coming into an advanced state of malnutrition that requires inpatient malnutrition treatment. You need clean water because the food that's being distributed has to be prepared with water. You need fuel so that people can cook the foods. You need medical treatment because many people who die in a famine die of disease, rather than outright starvation. And you need to improve sanitation, because if people do not have good sanitation, that's what allows the spread of waterborne diseases. None of that's possible right now. Why in your view has the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation been so ineffective? A core principle of humanitarian aid delivery is you want to get the aid as close to where the population is as possible. Gaza Humanitarian Foundation inverts that: They make the people come to the aid, rather than bringing the aid to the people. And they make people come to the aid through a deeply insecure territory, past IDF forces, who have been consistently trigger-happy anytime they see a crowd of Palestinians nearby. I and others warned very early on that this was likely to produce massacres, that this model was a recipe for disaster. Another core principle of humanitarian aid is that you must not provide aid in a way that increases the risk to the population. There's a very strongly ingrained ethos of 'do no harm.' This is a 'do harm' ethos, if anything. You're creating a situation where, in order to access aid, you compel people to cross a military perimeter where they are routinely shot at. That is not humanitarianism. Some advocates have suggested that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. Do you agree with that? That's indisputable. It's explicit. They want Hamas to relent, and they see the starvation of the population as a pressure point there. Do you think the US is complicit in that? I think the US is certainly complicit in that. I think even the Biden administration bears a degree of complicity in that, because they put somewhat more pressure on the Israeli government than the Trump administration has. But fundamentally, they tolerated the situation that brought Gaza to this point. They tolerated a year-plus of starvation tactics being used, deprivation and illegal blockade tactics being used, and obstruction of aid, including aid provided by the US government. Rather than taking that on with the Netanyahu government, they did gimmick after gimmick. They did air drops. They did that ridiculous pier operation. It wasn't until nearly the very end of the administration that they sent the formal letter to the Israeli government demanding concrete progress. And then, of course, there was no meaningful progress.

What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact
What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact

'President Donald J. Trump Saves College Sports.' If only it was that simple. The 176th executive order President Trump signed in the past seven months was announced Thursday with an audaciously headlined statement from the White House. We don't know how this will play out long term. But these are the key facts surrounding the executive order and the questions that need to be answered. What's happened in college sports that brought it to the federal government? The NCAA has been under attack on numerous legal fronts for more than a decade, particularly when it comes to paying athletes. Its policy for decades was strict amateurism — any compensation athletes received beyond their scholarships would render them ineligible. The model began cracking through a series of antitrust cases brought by former athletes, most notably Alston vs. NCAA in 2021. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that schools must be allowed to provide additional academic awards. By then, states began passing legislation allowing athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness — i.e. endorsement deals — in direct opposition to the NCAA's longstanding ban. On July 1, 2021, the NCAA relented and began allowing NIL payments, which touched off another antitrust case, House v. NCAA. A class of former athletes sued for back pay for missing out on NIL opportunities. The defendants agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement, part of which allows schools to pay athletes directly for the first time, up to $20.5 million. A judge approved the settlement on June 6, 2025. But the lack of an organized NIL system has led to chaos, with boosters exploiting the lack of enforcement. And with other legal challenges forcing the NCAA to eliminate its longstanding rules about transfers, athletes now routinely hop from one school to another in search of their next payday. Desperate for regulation, college sports leaders have been lobbying Congress for help in the form of a federal law for years, but not until recently has there been any significant movement on a bill. What are the key takeaways of the executive order? The order essentially makes recommendations for how college athletic departments should operate and directs several government agencies to weigh in on issues that will shape the future of college sports. It also delivers the NCAA and conferences much of what it has been lobbying for on Capitol Hill. However, the order's ability to turn ideas into action is questionable. The order: Gives a nod to protecting women's and Olympic sports by setting benchmarks for scholarships and opportunities based on the amount of money an athletic department makes. Bans 'pay-for-play' to athletes by schools, a bedrock principle of the NCAA and college sports that leaders are still clinging to. The order does try to carve out exceptions for endorsement and sponsorship deals with third-party businesses. Calls on the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board to clarify the employment status of student-athletes. Under a Republican administration, that likely decreases the chances athletes would have the right to organize. Directs the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to find ways to hand rule-making power back to the NCAA, conferences and other college sports governing bodies and away from courts and state legislatures. Who benefits from this? Considering how much it falls in line with what college sports leaders have been asking for, it would be difficult to call it athlete-friendly. Yes, it tries to protect non-revenue programs and force schools to fund a wide-range of teams for athletes to participate in college sports, but limiting compensation by regulating NIL compensation and banning pay-for-play has been at the root of problems for decades. 'Looks like an NCAA press release,' said Marc Edelman, professor of sports law at Baruch College and antitrust expert who has been a critic of NCAA policies. Several ideas for student-athlete compensation have emerged over the years to help relegate the market, from collective bargaining agreements to defining student-athletes as university employees. Though how much athletes actually want those things is hard to say; with more than 190,000 athletes competing in Division I sports, gauging consensus is tricky. Will this actually change anything? In the short term: no. In the long term: maybe. The biggest possible downside of the executive order is it could create more uncertainty for college sports, creating policies that may or may not hold. 'It very much depends on how this gets enforced moving forward, and whether it gets enforced moving forward,' said Sam Ehrlich, assistant professor at Boise State's college of business and economics. 'Maybe this could just end up being just a statement that goes absolutely nowhere.' What can the executive order do? It's not so much what an executive order can do as what it can't. It can't make a law, it can't provide an antitrust exemption and it can't override state laws. Congress can do that. And that's what college sports needs. Any policies that come from an executive order can either be challenged in court and reversed by the next administration, which means college sports continues to operate under a blanket of uncertainty when it comes to defining the relationship between schools and athletes. That's exactly what college sports leaders are trying to stop. What power does the government have in these situations? The executive branch does not have the authority to provide straightforward solutions to college sports' problems, most importantly some form of antitrust exemption. That has to come from Congress, and right now will require bipartisan support. The president's involvement could prioritize the issues in a way that motivates lawmakers to build on recent momentum in the Republican-controlled House, where a college sports bill made it out of committee for the first time earlier this week. Or maybe pervasive political divisiveness makes Democrats recoil from the idea of giving the president a symbolic victory. While the complicated problems facing college sports now are not quite a matter of life and death, it remains to be seen if presidential involvement makes finding solutions easier or harder. What is The SCORE Act? The SCORE Act is a House bill that would provide the NCAA and conferences some antitrust protection, pre-empt state laws related to NIL compensation and bolster the terms of the House settlement. The SCORE Act made it through two Republican-led House committees on partisan lines earlier this week. No college sports bill has ever gotten so far. When Congress returns for the fall session, the bill could go to the House floor for a vote and it will probably pass. That's meaningful and a positive sign for many in college sports after years of inaction by lawmakers. The bill also has little support from Democrats in the House and stands very little chance of making it through the Senate, where seven Democrats would have to vote with Republicans to get the 60 necessary to pass. What divides Republicans and Democrats? The debate over college sports legislation on Capitol Hill is akin to a labor dispute. Republicans, who currently control both chambers and the White House, are focused on ways to shield the NCAA and college sports conferences from litigation and state laws that make it impossible for them to effectively govern national competition. Democrats are demanding greater protections for the workers (the athletes) and are hesitant to provide the antitrust protections college sports leaders have been lobbying for. The NCAA and conferences want a law that would prevent college athletes from being deemed employees. Democrats want that option left open, along with athletes' rights to organize and maybe even join unions. What precedents are there involving federal legislation and higher education in sports? The president's EO is the most significant and direct entry by the executive branch into college athletics since Teddy Roosevelt's calls for safety reforms in football led to the creation of the NCAA in 1906. Lyndon Johnson's executive order signed in 1967, led to the passage of the federal Title IX gender discrimination law, which has been credited with paving the way for an explosion of opportunities for women in college sports. What does this mean for the NCAA? The NCAA as a governing body is ceding power to conferences and the newly formed College Sports Commission. However, it played a pivotal role in lobbying for federal legislation and has been much better received by lawmakers since former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker took over as NCAA president two years ago. The NCAA's future will ultimately be determined by college sports stakeholders, not politicians. Why is the president getting involved? The White House's announcement hailed Trump's long-held interest in college athletics, including preserving Olympic and women's sports amid the changing landscape. Until now, Trump's engagement with higher education has been adversarial, threatening federal funding and litigation against schools for Title IX violations or allegations of antisemitism and discrimination through the promotion of diversity at universities. Trump came away from a meeting with former Alabama football coach Nick Saban in May motivated to get involved. The formation of a presidential commission led by Saban and billionaire oil businessman Cody Campbell, a former Texas Tech football player and current board chair, was considered then put on hold as lawmakers worked on legislative solutions. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. College Football, Men's College Basketball, Women's College Basketball, College Sports 2025 The Athletic Media Company

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store