The Supreme Court on Monday opted not to hear a gender secrecy case out of Florida, in which parents objected to a policy that kept their child’s school from informing them of a gender transition. The case involves the School Board of Leon County, Florida, which in 2018 said that when students informed their school’s administration that they would assert a different gender identity, the school would treat students consistent with that gender identity. The plan said that school administrators revealing this to parents could be dangerous to the well-being of a student, CBS News reported.  In March, the high court held that California couldn’t require school districts to withhold such information from parents. In 2021, Florida enacted a statewide “Parents’ Bill of Rights” that included prohibiting public schools from keeping such information secret from parents. Leon County schools revised their policy in 2022 to comply with the law.  Before that, the student at the center of the case–known as A.G. in court papers–told her parents, January and Jeffrey Littlejohn, that she wanted to change her name to “J” and use they/them pronouns. The parents didn’t agree on the pronouns, but permitted her to use J.   The Littlejohn’s daughter, who attended a middle school in Tallahassee, Florida, reportedly told a school counselor she wanted to be nonbinary, having they/them pronouns. The counselor, social worker, and principal then met with her to plan an accommodation that included her preferred name and pronouns. The school officials didn’t tell the parents, who learned about the meeting from their daughter several days later.  The parents told the school to stop meeting privately with their daughter and treating her as nonbinary. They were later given a copy of the transition support plan. The parents sued the school board in 2021, alleging that their rights were violated. This lawsuit predated the Florida statute.  A trial court dismissed the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled the Littlejohns failed to satisfy the standard for proving a violation of their substantive due process rights.

There are not enough homes for every foster child, yet under the Biden administration, children were put in the system because of their parents’ beliefs about gender, said Assistant Secretary of Health Alex Adams.  Adams, who oversees the Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services, is working to stop Child Protective Services from taking kids away from their families because of the child’s gender identity.  “When a child is removed from a family, you are inflicting permanent, irreversible harm on both the child as well as the parents,” Adams told The Daily Signal. “That’s not a decision that should be made lightly, and it should be reserved to the most significant cases of abuse or neglect as judged by a court.”  “When a child is removed from a family, you are inflicting permanent, irreversible harm on both the child as well as the parents." @ACF_Adams tells @DailySignal he is stopping states from putting kids in foster care because their families don't affirm the child’s transgender… pic.twitter.com/qRf3sWWZGJ— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) April 27, 2026 For instance, Abby Martinez lost custody of her daughter to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services after the girl, Yaeli, started identifying as a boy. Three years later, Yaeli committed suicide.  President Donald Trump at the State of the Union highlighted Sage Blair, who reportedly became a human trafficking victim after her school hid her transgender identity from her mother. “One case is too many,” Adams said of family separation cases.  Adams sent letters to all 50 states telling them that under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, they cannot separate children from their parents due to the child’s gender identity. “A state child welfare agency should respect the sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions of the family,” Adams said. “No child should enter foster care because of differences in values like that.”  Adams is also making sure families aren’t prevented from fostering due to gender policies.  “Too many states have put in place requirements that foster families need to commit to affirming certain pronouns of children in their custody, that foster parents might have to commit to certain medical procedures,” Adams said. “And that’s deterring families of faith from stepping forward, from fostering as well.” Statistically, families of faith are most likely to foster, Adams said.  “If every house of worship in the country had just one family who committed to fostering, our ratio of homes to kids would be four to one,” he said. “If we did that, we would have homes waiting on kids, not kids, waiting on homes. So we have to be very deliberate about authentically engaging with the faith-based community.”  Since Adams’ letters went out, two states have already committed to changing their policies.  Vermont sent a letter saying that they were looking at their policies and committed to changing them, while Massachusetts enacted an emergency rule.  “We’re continuing to have dialogue and continue to have a discussion internally with other units within HHS about what the most appropriate next steps would be,” he said.  If states violate sincerely held religious beliefs, the administration will look at funding and regulation changes, he said.

The California gubernatorial debate went exactly how you would expect. Democrats deflecting blame and rerunning the same tired talking points instead of offering real solutions to California’s mounting list of problems. Climate sermons from private jet flyers, tax the rich rhetoric from billionaires, and homelessness solutions from leaders of failed cities who still think more government is the answer, all while blaming Donald Trump for nearly everything. And not a SINGLE mention of the rampant fraud in the state from the Democrats. Yet another reminder of why so many voters feel frustrated with the direction of the state.

Across the country, lawmakers and industry groups are pushing to make it harder to sue pesticide manufacturers when their products fail to adequately warn consumers about risks or how to protect themselves when using these chemicals. That debate between consumers and industry has now found its way to the Supreme Court. On April 27, the Court will hear oral arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell. The case will likely be decided on technical legal grounds that won’t bear directly on the scientific questions at stake. Still, if the Court sides with Monsanto, producer of the weed killer Roundup, this could accelerate, and even cement, the political trend of shielding pesticide companies from liability. At stake is whether Americans can bring state “failure-to-warn” claims when federally registered products fail to disclose risks. What the Court decides could shape future accountability fights well beyond pesticides. John Durnell, the plaintiff from Missouri, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of using Roundup without gloves or a mask. Some studies have linked repeated exposure to glyphosate, Roundup’s main ingredient, to this type of cancer. Like many others, he later sued Monsanto, arguing that the company failed to warn about cancer risks and proper protective measures. Notably, the company removed glyphosate from its U.S. residential Roundup products in 2023. The Missouri jury found Monsanto liable for failure-to-warn, though not for defective design or negligence. Monsanto is now appealing this decision, arguing that federal law shields it from liability. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the registration, labeling, and distribution of pesticides in the U.S. Monsanto argues that because EPA approved Roundup, it cannot be held liable for failure-to-warn under state law. The Supreme Court will not decide whether glyphosate causes cancer or whether Monsanto failed to warn appropriately. Instead, it will decide whether a state failure-to-warn civil claim can proceed when the EPA has approved the product label. Monsanto may have the stronger legal argument because FIFRA states that a state cannot impose labeling or packaging requirements that differ from federal requirements. However, the question is not entirely settled. In 2004, in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, the Supreme Court held that not all failure-to-warn claims are automatically pre-empted under FIFRA. State rules that impose labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” federal law are pre-empted. State claims that mirror FIFRA standards are not. A related question is whether a jury verdict in favor of a failure-to-warn claim creates a new labeling requirement. The plaintiff will argue that it does not; the verdict simply holds a company accountable after harm occurs. Monsanto, however, will argue that such a verdict would effectively require a different label than the one EPA approved, so the case still turns on federal preemption. This case is part of a broader trend. Since late last year, pesticide manufacturers have pushed for liability protection through multiple avenues. Those efforts are now advancing at both the state and federal levels. State legislatures are moving fast. North Dakota, Georgia, and Kentucky have all advanced protections for pesticide manufacturers. Momentum has grown at the federal level as well. In February, President Donald Trump signed a national security-focused executive order involving protections for American glyphosate-based herbicide manufacturers. If the Court rules in Monsanto’s favor, the consequences would extend far beyond this case. Manufacturers could effectively become immune from state failure-to-warn claims. Courts could lose an important role in checking federal regulatory gaps, and individuals could lose a key path to hold companies accountable. At a minimum, this issue is not as settled as liability-shield advocates suggest. The EPA withdrew its interim glyphosate safety decision in 2022 and is still revisiting the underlying review. Even if the Court limits state failure-to-warn claims, the debate will not end there. Other non-label legal claims may emerge, including around design or manufacturing defects, fraud, or deceptive marketing. Congress could also create a clearer path for injured consumers to seek recourse. This trend is not just about one pesticide or one lawsuit. It is about whether Americans can still turn to the courts when a product fails to warn about serious risks. If federal review becomes a broad shield against lawsuits under state law, injured consumers will have fewer options, and manufacturers will face less pressure to be transparent. Courts should remain a vital check when regulators miss risks, move too slowly, or leave key questions unresolved. That is why pressure cannot stop at the Supreme Court. State legislatures, Congress, regulators, and consumers all have a role to play in demanding real accountability, clearer warnings, and safer alternatives when products carry serious risks.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Rep. Chip Roy of Texas sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday, urging him to suspend funding for the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its affiliates and initiate debarment proceedings. “Why should Americans’ taxpayer dollars go to groups like CAIR that facilitate terrorism?” Roy told The Daily Signal. “On top of legislation I recently introduced designating CAIR as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organization and revoking its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, I am asking Secretary Kennedy, Jr. to investigate CAIR for misuse of federal grant dollars, and to debar them from future grants if it has engaged in foul play,” he added. “Groups like CAIR that support Hamas should not be lining their pockets on the backs of hardworking Americans.” In his letter, Roy outlined CAIR’s receipt of more than $15 million in Department of Health and Human Services sub‑grants since 2022, largely for Afghan resettlement and legal services programs administered through California. He further states that CAIR’s association with Islamic terror organizations creates a “grave risk to national security” that should disbar the organization from receiving federal tax dollars. “CAIR’s longstanding ties to terrorist organizations, including Hamas—a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO)—combined with documented financial mismanagement and misuse of federal grant funds administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), pose a grave risk to national security and render CAIR unfit to receive taxpayer dollars,” the letter reads. Roy’s letter claims CAIR has deep historical connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. As evidence, the lawmaker cites criminal cases involving past CAIR officials, and also CAIR’s listing as an unindicted co‑conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism‑financing case. For its part, CAIR represents itself as a civil rights organization dedicated to promoting the understanding of Islam and empowering American Muslims. The letter also accuses CAIR‑California of serious financial and compliance violations involving Office of Refugee Resettlement funds. These accusations include improper self‑funding and pass‑throughs to related affiliates, poor service delivery relative to funding received, inconsistent use of organizational names in grant documents, and failure to accurately disclose millions of dollars in federal grants on IRS filings. Citing federal regulations governing suspension and debarment, the letter argues that this conduct justifies immediate action. It adds that continued funding is a risk to both taxpayer dollars and national security. Finally, Roy is requesting that HHS fully investigate CAIR’s grant compliance and affiliations and take action if violations are confirmed. CAIR did not immediately return a request for comment by The Daily Signal.