Story Snapshot of what you need to know and why it matters:
- The feds are threatening to withhold funding from state schools sexual education programs unless they agree to pull gender ID lessons
- Maryland says the cuts would be unconstitutional and cost them nearly $1 million that could endanger student health
- This is the latest court clash between Maryland and the Trump Administration over federal funding cuts
The Story:
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown is back to suing the Trump Administration.
Brown and more than a dozen other Democratic led State Attorneys General are now accusing the Department of Health and Human Services of attempting to force them to "rewrite sexual health curricula to erase entire categories of students."
More specifically, the Administration is threatening to withhold school funding for teen sexual health education programs unless the states remove specific language affirming gender identity.
The Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) and Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) Program, would be most impacted by the funding cuts.
Here in Maryland, that would mean a loss of about $950,000 in federal funding, affecting about 1,400 students annually.
Brown says Prince George's County would be among the hardest hit, considering their high number of new HIV diagnoses each year.
“If the federal government follows through on its threat to pull nearly $950,000 in State funding, it will destroy 15 years of successful programming that helps more than 1,400 Maryland youth every year," said Brown. "These programs are a matter of life and death for communities like Prince George's County, which the previous Trump administration recognized as having one of the highest numbers of new HIV diagnoses in the country.”
Maryland law gives parents the right to opt their children out of gender ID classes, with exception to courses on HIV prevention.
This past legislative session, Democratic State House Lawmakers tried stripping parents of that right, but their efforts failed in the Senate.
SEE ALSO: Supreme Court rules parents are allowed to opt kids out of LGBTQ+ book reading
Like many of Brown's lawsuits, this latest one was filed in Oregon, a district with an overwhelming majority of Democratic appointed judges who are all but certain to rule in favor of the states.
The appeals process, however, has proven to be more of an uphill battle for Brown and company.
When it comes to government grants and funding complaints, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the Court of Federal Claims, not District Courts, have exclusive jurisdiction.
That was such the case when a Federal Appeals Court overturned a Maryland Judge's order that tried forcing the government to fund DEI training for teachers.
Additionally, the Supreme Court rebuffed Brown's attempts to halt Trump's overhaul of the Department of Education.
Then there's also the high court's recent "Skrmetti ruling" which upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming hormone therapies and puberty blockers for minors.
The 6-3 majority of conservative justices found the ban did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because the law was not considered a sex-based classification.
