Enjoy this round-up of the usual suspects – leftist librarians, progressive public school officials, and drug activists – all pushing back against laws meant to protect children and families.
Thankfully, we know that good prevails—although we would sure love your help teaching Boise Mayor Lauren McLean the same lesson.
1. The judge has spoken: Libraries still can’t give porn to kids
Liberal librarians are crying about “book banning” yet again.
Why? A federal judge has delivered a significant victory to Idaho parents by denying a request from some libraries to block the Children’s School and Library Protection Act (H710)—ensuring the law remains fully enforceable while the legal challenge against it continues.
House Bill 710 – which was largely researched and drafted by Idaho Family Policy Center – prohibits public schools and community libraries from providing pornographic material to children.
The Children’s School and Library Protection Act is currently facing a court challenge from a group of private libraries, schools, and parents, all of whom complain that the law is too vague and violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
But in reality, the new law uses the longstanding modified Miller test – adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court more than fifty years ago – to determine which materials meet the legal standard of “harmful for minors.”
“H.B. 710 likely provides a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited,” according to Judge Amanda Brailsford, the federal judge who is presiding over the case.
The ruling confirms what we’ve been saying all along—that this law is both good policy and constitutionally defensible.
And for the time being, Idaho kids can enter their libraries without being subjected to pornographic material—a major win in our book.
2. Idaho High School Activities Association finally agrees to protect women’s sports
One thing is clear: The Idaho High School Activities Association (IHSAA) cares more about federal money than the safety and dignity of Idaho girls.
According to a new policy adopted by the IHSAA, student athletes will now participate in sports leagues designated for their biological sex.
The policy change follows an executive order from the Trump administration, which threatens to withhold federal funding from schools that allow boys to compete against girls.
But the new policy doesn’t reflect a real change in heart at the ISHAA. For years now, the IHSAA has flouted state policies intended to protect fairness in girls’ sports:
- It didn’t matter that the Idaho Legislature passed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in 2020
- It didn’t matter that Gov. Little signed an executive order “defending women’s sports” in 2024
- It didn’t matter that Idahoans across the state were outraged as our daughters were forced to compete against biological males
So what was it that finally persuaded the IHSAA to change their policies? It all boils down to dollars and cents.
According to Chad Williams, executive director at IHSAA, “We didn’t want to put member schools in a compromising position where they could lose federal funding.”
Regardless of the ISHAA’s self-serving motives, the fact that our girls will no longer be forced to share playing fields and locker rooms with biological males is worth celebrating.
3. Boise Police Department decides it’s high time to enforce Idaho’s drug paraphernalia law
The Boise Police Department is cracking down on the sale and distribution of drug paraphernalia.
Over the past month, officers with BPD have visited at least 55 vape and smoke shops throughout the city of Boise, informing business owners that law enforcement intends to once again enforce the Idaho Drug Paraphernalia Act.
This straightforward statute – originally adopted by the state legislature in 1980 – makes it a felony to manufacture or deliver any drug paraphernalia that is used in conjunction with illicit substances.
Despite the plain text of the law, smoke and vape shop owners complain that the statute is “very vague” and “unclear.”
Here’s another example of a phenomenon we see all too often—those who don’t want to follow a law claim they can’t understand it.
But here are some inconvenient facts: The Idaho Supreme Court has already ruled that the law gives smoke shops “reasonable opportunity to know what is and what is not prohibited conduct.”
The law is clear—and BPD deserves a big public ‘thank you’ for stepping up to keep our communities and streets safe from corner store drug paraphernalia.
4. U.S. Supreme Court to determine if parents’ right to educate their children outweighs the school’s right to indoctrinate
Do parents have the right to excuse their young children from sexuality instruction that conflicts with their religious beliefs?
This question is now being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in the Mahmoud v. Taylor case earlier this week.
The case centers around one Maryland public school district, which requires students from ages three to eleven to read or listen to LGBT themed books as part of an“inclusivity” reading program.
One of the required books – targeted at preschoolers – contains a hidden picture puzzle directing children to find drag queens and different types of Pride flags. Another book centers around a homosexual wedding, where the young girl protagonist is pressured to be happy that her uncle chose to marry a man.
Idaho Family Policy Center joined an amicus brief filed by Advancing American Freedom in support of the parents. Our brief argued:
“The [school district’s] denial of parents’ efforts to protect their children from fashionable sexual brainwashing of children is inconsistent with the fundamental, constitutionally recognized right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children and the right of parents to freely exercise their religious beliefs . . .
When school officials decide to propagandize from the lectern, parents have a right to object and to exempt their children from that instruction. Such a modest request to protect such fundamental rights should be granted.”
SCOTUS will issue their final decision in the case by early July. In the meantime, let’s be praying that the justices side with parents—and protect their right to guide the upbringing and education of their children.
