In a latest case, Lee v. Poudre College District R-1, Colorado dad and mom Jonathan and Erin Lee, together with Nicolas and Linnaea Jurich, sued their faculty district, alleging it groomed their daughters into the LGBTQ cult by way of secretive Gender and Sexualities Alliance (GSA) conferences. They claimed lecturers misled their youngsters about gender identification, inspired them to cover it from dad and mom, and brought on extreme emotional hurt, together with suicidal ideation.
But, on April 22, 2025, the Tenth Circuit Court docket of Appeals upheld the dismissal of their lawsuit as a result of, in line with the Court docket, the dad and mom didn’t show the district’s insurance policies instantly brought on their accidents.
Let’s rewind to 1992’s Lee v. Weisman, when the U.S. Supreme Court docket swooped in to “save” a defenseless lady from listening to a rabbi’s invocation at her commencement. The Court docket declared that even a quick prayer violated the First Modification due to the potential coercive impact on the poor defenseless lady who was subjected to listen to the Identify of God. The Court docket feared that – God forbid – an atheist pupil could also be persuaded to consider in God at a public faculty, and the Court docket couldn’t take that probability. The Supreme Court docket despatched a transparent message: God has no place inside America’s colleges.
Credit score: Fred Schilling, Assortment of the Supreme Court docket of the US.
However as we speak the Courts haven’t any downside with subjecting youngsters to the gospel of the LGBTQ spiritual cult. Journalists like Libs of TikTok have uncovered the epidemic of blue-haired lecturers, faces riddled with piercings, draping satisfaction flags over lecture rooms and preaching the gospel of gender confusion to susceptible youngsters. These activists confuse youngsters—already grappling with the chaos of adolescence—pushing them towards identities and ideologies that tear households aside and in lots of instances result in irreparable psychological accidents.
That is far worse than the Rabbi’s quick invocation that the Supreme Court docket known as coercive after they put an finish to highschool prayer nationwide. But, when dad and mom, like these in Lee v. Poudre, battle again, courts toss their instances. Courts will intervene to banish even the point out of God from the colleges. However relating to defending youngsters from relentless LGBTQ indoctrination, the Courts humbly determine to not get contain and to deprive the dad and mom of their day in court docket.
The Lee v. Poudre Case: A Disturbing Case of College Grooming
In Lee v. Poudre College District, the dad and mom alleged {that a} Wellington Center-Excessive College trainer had personal talks with a 12-year-old pupil, urging her to reject female pronouns and welcoming her to a “GSA Artwork Membership” assembly that was really a Gender and Sexualities Alliance session the place a trainer lectured youngsters for 90 minutes about how discomfort with their our bodies meant they had been doubtless transgender and at increased threat of suicide. The trainer handed out LGBTQ-themed prizes to college students who “got here out” as transgender and warned them to not inform their dad and mom, even giving out her private contact data for secret chats. The 12-year-old, who had by no means earlier than questioned her gender, declared herself transgender on the assembly however instructed her dad and mom, who promptly pulled her from the district. One other sixth-grader was instructed the identical alarming messages at comparable conferences and spiraled into suicidal ideas, believing her misery “proved” she was transgender. She later tried suicide, and her dad and mom additionally withdrew her from the college.
The dad and mom pointed to district insurance policies, just like the Pointers for Supporting Transgender and Non-Binary College students, which instructed workers to withhold college students’ transgender standing from dad and mom except legally required or approved by the scholar. They argued these insurance policies enabled a tradition of secrecy, permitting lecturers to control impressionable youngsters with out parental information. The district defended itself, claiming the insurance policies merely protected pupil privateness and created a “protected house.”
The Tenth Circuit, nonetheless, didn’t even handle whether or not the insurance policies violated parental rights. As an alternative, it dominated the dad and mom couldn’t show the district’s insurance policies instantly brought on the lecturers’ actions, like deceptive youngsters concerning the GSA conferences or discouraging parental disclosure. In a concurring opinion, Decide McHugh acknowledged the insurance policies might implicate parental rights by encouraging secrecy however agreed the dad and mom’ particular accidents weren’t tied intently sufficient to these insurance policies.
The Controversy: A Double Normal
The controversy in Lee v. Poudre is a part of a broader cultural battle. Dad and mom throughout the nation are sounding alarms as colleges embrace LGBTQ ideology, usually with out transparency. Academics, emboldened by insurance policies like Poudre’s, are accused of grooming youngsters right into a cult-like mindset, convincing them that questioning their gender is a ceremony of passage and that folks can’t be trusted, actively undermining households.
However in Lee v. Weisman the Supreme Court docket didn’t hesitate to intervene. A rabbi’s prayer at a commencement was deemed so dangerous that it warranted a nationwide ban on school-sponsored spiritual expression. The Court docket didn’t dodge the problem with technicalities; it acted decisively to purge God from public colleges. But, when dad and mom beg courts to guard their youngsters from ideologues pushing gender confusion, the response is a shrug. The Lee v. Poudre court docket might have tackled the query of whether or not colleges can constitutionally conceal important info from dad and mom however as a substitute took the straightforward out, claiming the dad and mom’ proof didn’t meet the stringent commonplace for municipal legal responsibility.
Why This Issues
The Lee v. Poudre case exposes a double commonplace in how courts deal with colleges. When it’s about banishing faith, the judiciary leaps into motion, as in Lee v. Weisman. However when colleges are accused of grooming youngsters into the LGBTQ spiritual cult, courts conceal behind authorized technicalities, leaving dad and mom powerless. This isn’t only a Colorado downside—it’s a nationwide disaster. Libs of TikTok and others have documented numerous lecturers brazenly boasting about “queering” their lecture rooms, complicated college students as younger as elementary faculty age. The hurt is simple: youngsters endure psychological well being crises, households fracture, and oldsters are left at the hours of darkness.
The importance of this case lies in what it reveals about judicial priorities. Courts have proven they’ll reshape faculty tradition to align with secular values however received’t carry a finger to cease what many see as ideological grooming. The Lee v. Poudre ruling sends a chilling message: colleges can push radical agendas on youngsters, and oldsters have little authorized recourse. Till courts take parental rights as significantly as they take the separation of church and state, youngsters will stay susceptible to the LGBTQ spiritual cult’s affect in colleges, and oldsters will maintain combating an uphill battle.
