The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday from religious parents who say young children can’t be expected to separate a teacher’s moral messages from their family’s beliefs – raising the question of whether exposure to LGBTQ-themed storybooks in elementary classrooms constitutes ‘coercion.’

Eric S. Baxter, the attorney representing Maryland parents in Mahmoud v. Taylor, told the justices that Montgomery County Public Schools violated the First Amendment by denying opt-out requests for books that ‘contradict their religious beliefs,’ even while allowing exemptions for other religious objections – such as books depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

‘There’s no basis for denying opt-outs for religious reasons,’ Baxter said during oral arguments. ‘Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters.’

Justice Clarence Thomas asked Baxter about whether children were merely ‘exposed’ to the books or actively instructed by them. 

‘Are the books just there and no more, or are they actually being taught out of the books?’ he asked.

Baxter said teachers were required to use the materials in class. ‘When the books were first introduced in August of 2022, the board suggested they be used five times before the end of the year. One of the schools, Sherwood School, in June for Pride Month said that they were going to read one book each day.’

Parents, supported by religious freedom organizations, argue that this policy infringes upon their First Amendment rights by compelling their children to engage in instruction that contradicts their religious beliefs. The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Baxter whether exposure to same-sex relationships in children’s books could be considered religious coercion. 

‘Is looking at two men getting married… is that the religious objection?’ she asked, referencing the book, ‘Uncle Bobby’s Wedding.’ ‘The most they’re doing is holding hands.’

Baxter maintained that it depends on the family’s faith. ‘Our parents would object to that,’ he said. ‘Their faith teaches… they shouldn’t be exposed to information about sex during their years of innocence without being accompanied by moral principles.’

Justice Samuel Alito inquired about the developmental capacity of young children as young as 4 to question classroom teachings and moral instruction.

‘Would you agree that there comes a point when a student is able to make that distinction?’ he asked. ‘That my teacher… isn’t necessarily going to be correct on everything. It is possible for me to disagree with him or her on certain subjects?’

Baxter agreed.

‘That’s right,’ he said. ‘And many of our clients’ objections would be diminished as their children got older.’

But Baxter stood strong on the point that age matters, especially in this case. He argued even Montgomery County school officials had acknowledged some books were not age-appropriate and criticized their attitude toward religious perspectives.

‘In a situation where Montgomery County’s own principals objected that these books were inappropriate for the age, they were dismissive of religion and shaming toward children who disagree,’ Baxter said. ‘The board itself withdrew two of the books for what it said were content concerns, because it finally agreed that what parents and petitioners – and its own principals – are saying was accurate.’

Mahmoud v. Taylor is one of three major religious cases the Supreme Court has on the docket for this year.  

Earlier this month, the high court heard a case brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group’s bid for tax relief, which could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions. 

At issue in that case is whether the Wisconsin branch of Catholic Charities, a social services organization affiliated with Catholic dioceses across the country, can successfully contest the state’s high court determination that it is ineligible for a religious tax exemption because it is not ‘operated primarily for religious purposes.’

The third case is about whether a Catholic online school can become the first religious charter school in the U.S. 

Iran has carried out 1,051 state executions since President Masoud Pezeshkian took office on July 8, 2024 – a surge that security experts say the U.S. must weigh as it resumes nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

The figure, reported to Fox News Digital by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), represents a more than 20% increase from the number of Iranians killed in 2023, which saw 853 Iranians executed by the regime. 

In his race for the presidency, Pezeshkian aligned himself with moderates and reformists angry with the regime following the 2022 death of Mahsa Amini and the subsequent protests.

In a 2024 televised debate just days before he won the election in a record-low turnout, he reportedly said, ‘We are losing our backing in the society, because of our behavior, high prices, our treatment of girls and because we censor the internet.’

‘People are discontent with us because of our behavior,’ he added, prompting hope that Pezeshkian – who has also expressed a willingness to engage with the U.S. in nuclear negotiations – might bring some reform Iranians had long pushed for from the oppressive regime. 

But executions targeting those arrested for drug-related offenses, dissents and those involved in the 2022 protests have only increased – including the increased killings of women and those who were minors at the time of their alleged offense.

‘Such levels of savagery and brutality reflect the deadly deadlock in which the ruling religious fascism in Iran is trapped,’ the NCRI said in a statement on Monday. ‘[Supreme Leader of Iran Ali] Khamenei is desperately trying to prevent a nationwide uprising and the inevitable overthrow of his regime through executions and killings.’

Amnesty International reported earlier this month that girls as young as 9 years old can be sentenced to execution, while for boys it starts at age 15. 

‘At least 73 young offenders were executed between 2005 and 2015. And the authorities show no sign of stopping this horrific practice,’ the organization added, noting that the U.N. reports there are at least 160 people facing death row for crimes they committed while under the age of 18, though it also notes that that number is likely a low representation of the actual figures. 

The human rights atrocities come as the U.S. is looking to secure a nuclear deal with Tehran, and officials are calling on the international community to consider Iran’s record of abuse in its negotiations with the regime.

Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the NCRI, has ‘urged the international community to condition any dealings with the regime on the cessation of torture and executions, refer Iran’s human rights violations file to the U.N. Security Council, and, as requested by the U.N. special rapporteur in the July 2024 report, bring Ali Khamenei and other regime leaders to justice for crimes against humanity and genocide.’

‘After suffering irreparable setbacks in the region and facing the growing threat of an uprising and overthrow, the regime has brutally accelerated executions and massacres,’ she said in a statement to Fox News Digital. 

She has also called on the Iranian people, ‘especially the youth,’ to protest the executions by joining the ‘No to Execution’ movement.

However, students across Iran face a real threat in opposing the regime, as Pezeshkian and Iran’s minister of education, Alireza Kazemi, have reportedly dispatched State Security Forces to tamp down on what Khamenei has deemed ‘cultural infiltration, the enemy’s lifestyle, and hostile temptations’ targeting Iran’s youth. 

A Russian court reportedly slashed the sentence of an American who has been held overseas following a drug trafficking conviction. 

The sentence of Robert Woodland was reduced from 12.5 years to 9.5 years on Tuesday, his attorney, Stanislav Kshevitsky, told Reuters. 

It’s unclear why Woodland’s sentence was shortened. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Woodland was found guilty last July of attempting to sell drugs after he was arrested and found to be in possession of 50 grams of mephedrone, Reuters reported, citing prosecutors. 

Woodland, born in Russia in 1991, was adopted by American parents at the age of 2. He returned to Russia at the age of 26 in order to meet his birth mother, he claimed. 

At the time of Woodland’s arrest in January 2024, the U.S. State Department stated it ‘has no greater priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas.’

Kshevitsky said Woodland has partially admitted guilt, according to Reuters. 

Woodland remains held in Russia despite a number of recent prisoner releases during the Trump administration. 

Russian-American ballerina Ksenia Karelina, who was wrongfully detained in Russia for more than a year, was released earlier this month as part of a prisoner swap.

Karelina was sentenced to 12 years in a Russian penal colony after pleading guilty to treason for donating $51.80 to a Ukrainian charity in early 2024. 

In February, Trump brought American history teacher Marc Fogel, who had been detained in Russia since 2021, back to the U.S. 

Fox News’ Jasmine Baehr, Elizabeth Pritchett and Alex Hogan contributed to this report. 

The House GOP’s elections arm is offering to foot the bill for any future Democratic lawmakers’ trips to El Salvador after multiple progressive lawmakers traveled there in protest of the Trump administration’s deportation policies.

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) made the public offering on Monday – but any takers have to provide real-time video evidence of the visit.

‘If out-of-touch House Democrats are so desperate to cozy up to violent gang members, the least they can do is let Americans watch the show,’ NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella said. 

‘We’ll pay for the plane tickets, they just can’t forget to smile for the camera while they sell out their constituents.’

Progressive Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., was in El Salvador last week, where he met with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant married to an American citizen. The administration says Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang member with a violent history.

Democrats, in contrast, have painted him as a Maryland father and husband wrongfully deported under the Trump administration’s sweeping immigration plans. 

Four House Democrats – Reps. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., Robert Garcia, D-Calif., Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., and Maxine Dexter, D-Ore. – are currently in El Salvador with Abrego Garcia’s family lawyer in an effort to secure his release. 

Frost told Fox News host Will Cain on Monday that they had not been able to meet with him.

In their press release announcing the trip, the group said it was not funded by taxpayer dollars, though it did not say how it was funded.

It comes amid President Donald Trump’s standoff with the courts over his administration’s deportation of suspected Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gang members to El Salvador.

Democrats and human rights groups argue that the White House is denying due process rights to deported individuals, while supporters say the illegal immigrants’ hearings and deportation orders are sufficient evidence of due process.

The Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision earlier this month that ordered the Trump administration to arrange Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S. The court ordered the U.S. ‘to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.’

Republicans, meanwhile, are eager to tie Democrats to suspected criminals being deported to an El Salvador prison – particularly after border security and immigration proved potent issues for the GOP in the 2024 elections.

The NRCC’s Senate counterpart, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), released a video on X with a message to Democrats: ‘¡Bienvenidos a El Salvador Senate Dems! Democrats should feel free to make their trip to hang out with MS-13 gangbangers one-way.’

The 40-second video is a vacation-style clip advertising El Salvador as ‘the destination for Democrats seeking the thrill of bringing violent criminal illegal aliens back to America.’

‘Come witness Trump Derangement Syndrome in its purest form,’ the voiceover says. ‘So, what are you waiting for, Senate Democrats?’

An Indiana lawmaker is celebrating an American bicycle company opening a new manufacturing plant in her district after President Donald Trump launched his aggressive tariff campaign against China.

Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., told Fox News Digital that Guardian Bikes is starting with a new $19 million investment in Seymour, Indiana to expand their operations there – which she said will create new local jobs.

‘The number of job opportunities that are available, the investment right here in southern Indiana, that’s money that’s staying right here at home and not going outside the country. And certainly away from China,’ Houchin said in her first interview on the topic.

The Indiana Republican, now in her second term, said she first visited Guardian Bikes shortly after being elected to Congress. At the time, they had just 16 employees, she said.

‘At the time, they talked to us about their desire to become a 100% made in the USA bicycle factory,’ Houchin said. ‘Currently, over 97% of bicycles are made outside of the United States. Many are assembled in the United States, but their component parts mostly come from China.’

Guardian Bikes specifically relied on Chinese imports for 70% of its production, she said.

After Trump’s election in November 2024, however, she said ‘they have been slowly working toward being 100% made in the USA.’

‘They just announced $19 million in financing with JPMorgan Chase to launch the first large-scale bicycle frame manufacturing operation in the United States,’ Houchin said. ‘This has been made possible by President Trump’s trade policies…it’s just pretty incredible that we have a president right now that is focused so much…on creating a level playing field for American companies.’

Houchin said the company is aiming to increase its ‘mass market’ bicycles manufactured in the U.S. from 100,000 to over 1 million.

‘That’s just very, very exciting,’ she said.

Guardian Bikes also currently has locations in California and Pennsylvania, with two more expected in Texas and Georgia this year, according to the company’s website.

The site also touts the company’s plans to manufacture its bike frames in Indiana, and vows to be ‘rapidly’ moving toward being made entirely within the United States.

‘We brought Guardian Bikes production to the U.S., because we believe the future of manufacturing is local, fast, and data-driven. Indiana, and specifically Seymour, offers the perfect combination of workforce, infrastructure, and proximity to our customer base,’ Guardian Bikes CEO Brian Riley told Fox News Digital. ‘It’s not just about making bikes – it’s about building a new model for American manufacturing.’

It comes as critics of Trump’s sweeping tariff plans have accused him of upending the global economy.

Supporters of the plan, however, have hailed it as both a potent negotiating strategy and a long-needed solution to jobs moving overseas.

A cornerstone of Trump’s policy has been a 10% tariff on all imports to the U.S. Plans for additional reciprocal tariffs, which Trump announced earlier this month, were dropped against countries that have not retaliated against the U.S.

However, Trump has levied a massive 145% base tariff across all of Beijing’s exports in a bid to crack down on the U.S.’s growing reliance on Chinese manufacturing.

When reached for comment by Fox News Digital, White House spokesman Kush Desai told Fox News Digital, ‘Trillions in historic investment commitments from industry leaders – now including Guardian Bikes – since Election Day only reinforces what President Trump has been saying all along: if you make your product in America, you don’t have to worry about tariffs.’

Vice President JD Vance touted progress made toward a U.S.-India trade deal on Tuesday, saying a partnership between the Trump administration and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi would ensure a 21st century that’s ‘prosperous and peaceful.’ 

Speaking in the northwestern Indian city of Jaipur, Vance also warned of ‘dire’ consequences in the Indo-Pacific and a ‘dark time’ for the world should the partnership between the U.S. and India fail. 

‘Critics have attacked my president, President Trump, for starting a trade war in an effort to bring back the jobs of the past, but nothing could be further from the truth,’ Vance said, referring to Trump’s aggressive tariff policies and commitment to revitalize U.S. manufacturing. ‘He seeks to rebalance global trade so that America, with friends like India, can build a future worth having for all of our people together.’ 

President Donald Trump and Modi announced in February that the U.S. and India aim to double bilateral trade to $500 billion by the end of the decade. 

‘Both of our governments are hard at work on a trade agreement built on shared priorities, like creating new jobs, building durable supply chains and achieving prosperity for our workers,’ Vance said on Tuesday. ‘In our meeting yesterday, Prime Minister Modi and I made very good progress on all of those points, and we’re especially excited to formally announce that America and India have officially finalized the terms of reference for the trade negotiations. I think this is a vital step toward realizing President Trump and Prime Minister Modi’s vision because it sets a roadmap toward a final deal between our nations. I believe there is much America and India can accomplish together.’ 

Vance noted that his trip to India was the first time he had visited the birthplace of the parents of his wife, Usha Vance. The vice president, the second lady and their three children visited Modi for dinner on Monday. 

In his speech Tuesday, Vance said his children have only built a rapport with two world leaders – Trump and Modi, who the second family first met in February at the AI Action Summit in Paris. 

‘Our kids just like him,’ Vance said, arguing that children are ‘brutally honest’ and typically good judges of character. ‘I just like Prime Minister Modi too. And I think it’s a great foundation for the future of our relationship.’ 

‘President Trump and I know that Prime Minister Modi is a tough negotiator. He drives a hard bargain. It’s one of the reasons why we respect him. And we don’t blame Prime Minister Modi for fighting for India’s industry,’ Vance said. ‘But we do blame American leaders of the past for failing to do the same for our workers. And we believe that we can fix that to the mutual benefit of both the United States and India.’ 

Vance appeared to reference China – though not directly – in addressing the high-stakes nature of trade negotiations between the U.S. and India. 

‘This audience knows better than most: neither Americans nor Indians are alone and looking to scale up their manufacturing capacity,’ Vance said. ‘The competition extends well beyond cheap consumer goods and into munitions, energy infrastructure and all sorts of other cutting-edge technologies. I believe that if our nations fail to keep pace, the consequences for the Indo-Pacific, but really the consequences for the entire world will be quite dire.’ 

‘We believe a stronger India means greater economic prosperity. But also greater stability across the Indo-Pacific, which is, of course, a shared goal for all of us in this room,’ the vice president continued. ‘I believe that if India and the United States work together successfully, we are going to see a 21st century that is prosperous and peaceful. But I also believe that if we fail to work together successfully, the 21st century could be a very dark time for all of humanity.’ 

In the past, Vance argued, Washington has approached Modi with an ‘attitude of preachiness or even one of condescension,’ using India ‘as a source of low-cost labor’ while criticizing the prime minister’s government. 

Vance said the Trump administration recognizes that’cheap, dependable energy is an essential part of making things and is an essential part of economic independence for both of our nations.’ He said America isblessed with vast natural resources and an unusual capacity to generate energy,’ arguing that India would benefit from purchasing expanding U.S. energy exports by being able ‘to build more, make more, and grow more, but at much lower energy costs.’

‘We also want to help India explore its own considerable natural resources, including its offshore natural gas reserves and critical mineral supplies,’ he said. ‘We believe that American energy can help realize India’s nuclear power production goals, and this is very important as well as its AI ambitions, because as the United States knows well, and I know that India knows well there is no AI future without energy security and energy dominance.’ 

‘Americans want further access to Indian markets. This is a great place to do business, and we want to give our people more access to this country,’ Vance said. ‘And Indians, we believe, will thrive from greater commerce in the United States. This is very much a win-win partnership. It certainly will be far into the future.’ 

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a closely watched case that could reshape the role of parental rights and religious freedom in public education. 

At issue is whether a Maryland school district violated the First Amendment by requiring elementary school students to engage with LGBTQ+ storybooks that include topics about gender transitions and same-sex relationships, without allowing parents to opt out. 

The policy was implemented to disrupt ‘cisnormativity’ and promote inclusivity, according to Supreme Court documents. Initially, the school allowed parents to opt their children out of these lessons, but later reversed this decision, eliminating the opt-out option and not notifying parents when such content was being taught.

Parents, supported by religious freedom organizations, argue that this policy infringes upon their First Amendment rights by compelling their children to engage in instruction that contradicts their religious beliefs. The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school.

Thomas More Society attorney Michael McHale told Fox News Digital in a previous interview that ‘while there is an opt-out statute in state law, the school initially abided by it.’

‘The school decided to yank the opt-out exception, so to speak, and it really triggered the issue of whether the Constitution requires an opt-out in that circumstance,’ McHale said. 

‘For the Fourth Circuit to say there was no religious burden, it really seems radical, and given how pressing that issue of school curriculum on sexual orientation, gender identity is, I think it raises an issue worth the Supreme Court’s attention,’ he said.

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed several executive orders related to gender policies in federal institutions. McHale said these actions could reduce legal conflicts involving religious rights, such as disputes over whether teachers must use students’ preferred pronouns in schools.

Mahmoud v. Taylor is one of three major religious cases the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for this year.  

Earlier this month, the high court heard a case brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group’s bid for tax relief, which could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions. 

At issue in that case is whether the Wisconsin branch of Catholic Charities, a social services organization affiliated with Catholic dioceses across the country, can successfully contest the state’s high court determination that it is ineligible for a religious tax exemption because it is not ‘operated primarily for religious purposes.’

The third case is about whether a Catholic online school can become the first religious charter school in the U.S.