LGBTQ visibility? Not in classrooms, if religious challengers have their way at the SCOTUS.
Advertisement
The parents — who are Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox — claim that inclusion of those books, without the ability to opt their children out of the curriculum, burdens their ability to exercise their religions. They argue that most states, including Maryland, offer opt-outs to classroom instruction about sex education and seek to enjoin the state from including the LGBTQ-focused books without a similar provision.
Advertisement
So far, no court has sided with them. Most recently, the
Given those losses, and with no disagreement between circuit courts on what legal standard to apply, or any other compelling reason for the Supreme Court to step in, this would have been an easy case to simply decline to hear. But in January, the court put it on its docket anyway.
That is unsurprising to anyone who has paid attention to the justices in the court's majority, who earlier this term signaled that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment should be read so broadly as to
This court allowed
out
of our government. It was meant to protect people from having religion foisted upon them, particularly by the government. That has been all but written out of the Constitution's text by the court's recent rulings.
Advertisement
So what should you expect in Tuesday's argument? I expect the parents in the Maryland court to get their first sign of being on the winning side of a court case.
Others, like the
The argument will take place Tuesday at 10 a.m. EDT. You can listen live
This is an excerpt from
, a newsletter about the Supreme Court from columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?
'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster — though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social-media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60% to 70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows — given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump administration presses Boston to ditch ‘sanctuary' policies
'We know where this is coming from and we know why. Unlike the Trump administration, Boston follows the law and it's as simple as that,' Wu said Friday night in East Boston, according to a recording of her remarks provided by her staff. Bondi outlined her demands to Wu and the leaders of other jurisdictions that the Trump administration believes are impeding his immigration enforcement efforts in letters dated Wednesday. Related : Advertisement 'This ends now,' Bondi wrote, according to a copy of the letter shared with the Globe. US Senator Edward Markey, a Malden Democrat, on Saturday accused Bondi of picking a fight to score political points. 'I know Mayor Wu and Boston leaders are working hard to keep Boston one of the safest big cities in the country, to uphold state and local laws, and to treat all residents with dignity and respect,' he said in a statement. Advertisement US Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Cambridge, said Boston is 'Instead of dividing and distracting, he should be focused on lowering costs and making life better for people across the country,' she said in a statement. US Representative Ayanna Pressley, a former Boston city councilor and Democrat, said Boston is welcoming and expressed support for Wu. 'This authoritarian Administration does not care about keeping our communities safe - their strategy is to divide, fear monger, and target vulnerable people as they distract from the fact that they're ripping away healthcare and giving taxpayers' cash to billionaires,' she said in a statement. Related : In March, Related : The city's Nearly 80 percent of Boston voters said they have at least a somewhat favorable view of that policy, and more than 62 percent said they have a 'strongly favorable' opinion of the Trust Act, the poll found. Josh Kraft, a Democrat who is challenging Wu in this year's mayor's race, said Bondi's demands are 'just another unhinged and bigoted attack targeting our nation's immigrants.' 'We cannot yield to Donald Trump and his band of thugs,' he said in a statement Saturday. Advertisement City Councilor Ed Flynn of South Boston said the city is proud of its immigrant roots, but he supports the prosecution of people engaged in criminal behavior regardless of whether they're in the country legally. 'Boston is an international city, and we must have a close working relationship with state and federal law enforcement partners and necessary resources to address any and all public safety issues,' he said in a text message. Boston This is the second time Trump officials have included Boston on such a list. In May, the US Department of Homeland Security published a The New England states of Rhode Island, Vermont, and Connecticut made the list, as well as the state of New York, New York City, and Rochester, N.Y. In revealing the new list on Aug. 5, the Justice Department pointed to an array of policies that it sees as impeding the federal government's efforts to enforce immigration law. The examples include local governments declining to cooperate with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, establishing offices to advise 'illegal alien communities' on evading federal law enforcement, and public declarations that seek to undermine immigration enforcement. In statements on Friday, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont and Attorney General William Tong, both Democrats, accused Bondi of falsely identifying the state as a 'sanctuary' jurisdiction. Advertisement 'Connecticut is not a 'sanctuary' state,' Lamont said. 'That term has no legal definition, and it is not an accurate description of our laws and practices.' 'This generic, non-specific form letter lacks any meaningful detail and does not merit a response,' said McKee in a statement to the Globe. Bondi's letter to Wu doesn't specify the potential consequences the city could face if it doesn't comply, but signals the administration's willingness to consider funding cuts, criminal prosecution, or civil litigation. Trump outlined possible sanctions in an April Wu told reporters that legal challenges to Trump's threats to cut off funding have been successful. 'Boston does not back down in the face of threats, certainly when the threats and the tactics cross the line and seem to be against the law as well,' she said. A In February, Advertisement This year, Globe correspondent Emily Spatz contributed. Laura Crimaldi can be reached at
CNBC
4 hours ago
- CNBC
Not in the cards: Why some suspect stable trade may not follow Trump's tariff deals
The White House has signed a number of notable trade deals in the months since President Donald Trump slapped sharply higher tariffs on imports in early April. But some on Wall Street are cautioning that turmoil surrounding relations between the U.S. and its major trading partners is far from over. "Our views have been at odds with the investor consensus all year – and they still are," Andy Laperriere, head of U.S. policy at Piper Sandler, wrote in a report this summer. "The emerging narrative is that even though tariffs are high, we now have deals that will provide stability in trade policy. Therefore, economic actors can adjust to the new reality and move on," he said. In his firm's opinion, however, "trade stability is not in the cards." Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs went into effect on Aug. 7. The president had announced the sweeping levies back on April 2, and their initial size sent stocks reeling before a series of walk-backs from the White House eased investors' concerns. Stocks have since recovered these losses and gone on to score record highs. Lately, investors have been betting that Trump won't implement the most draconian of his trade plans, in what has come to be known as the TACO trade, short for "Trump Always Chickens Out." But the duties that Trump announced in early April have in large part taken hold. An exception is Vietnam, as shown by Piper Sandler data. Though still high, the rate on imports from Vietnam is less than half the level Trump threatened on April 2, Laperriere said. "One of the things that I think is interesting, that I think is underappreciated is that 'liberation day' mostly arrived," Laperriere said during a webinar earlier this month. "When you look at our major trading partners, most of what was put on the board on April 2 is on the board now." Catalysts for instability Trump's tariffs have faced significant legal challenges, with a federal appeals court judge seeming skeptical in late July of the president's claim that he has the authority to impose new tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), a law that grants the president authority to regulate international commerce in response to a national emergency. Trump later warned U.S. courts against blocking his tariff policy. With the ongoing litigation and unsettled backdrop, uncertainty around the future of tariffs and trade persists. "If the courts find he is overstepping his authority to impose tariffs, which is highly likely, then the deals are null and void," Laperriere wrote in his report. "The Supreme Court is likely to rule against Trump's use of IEEPA within the next 10 months." One reason countries continue to negotiate is the assumption that Trump could pivot to use another authority if his IEEPA claim is struck down, said Ed Mills, managing director and Washington policy analyst at Raymond James. For example, Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — the original Smoot-Hawley protectionist legislation — allows a president to implement tariffs of up to 50% on imported goods from countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce. Trump "has a history of taking the entire legal process to run out the clock," Mills told CNBC. "Tariffs are here to stay." Another driver of instability is the lack of details about the trade agreements that have so far been reached. For instance, Trump announced trade deals with Indonesia and the Philippines , but the specifics have yet to be confirmed. Additionally, officials from other countries including Japan and South Korea have disagreed with Trump on the terms of their agreements, signaling they have not yet been finalized. Unsettled "Foreign officials describe the few details differently than Trump and his top advisors, so even some of the high-level features have not been ironed out," Laperriere wrote. "These deals aren't settled and are built in part on phony promises. They could easily fall apart." On top of that, some trading partners, such as the European Union, are unlikely to live by their deals for very long, he claimed. Last month, Trump said that he reached a deal with the bloc , one that involves a 15% tariff on most European goods coming into the U.S. But European leaders and analysts criticized the deal shortly thereafter, calling it "unbalanced." Meanwhile, no final agreements have been reached between the U.S. and key partners such as Canada, Mexico and China . In fact, Trump last Monday delayed imposing additional tariffs on Chinese goods for another 90 days. The president could meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping "around the [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] summit" in the fall, though "what happens at that meeting is a big wild card," Mills said. "There are going to be some countries where they're able to get to a final agreement and other countries where they fall apart," Mills said to CNBC. "I think that the larger the trading partner is, the more likely they are going to find a way to get to yes." 'Priced out' risk Even with some of Trump's tariffs going into effect, the stock market has soared to all-time highs this summer, underscoring optimism that the U.S. economy can withstand threats of high tariffs at home and abroad. Yet, Laperriere believes Wall Street isn't properly accounting for the potential impacts of the duties on the economy. For now, JPMorgan projects that tariffs could result in about a 1% hit to gross domestic product. Prediction markets have been pricing out recession risk, with the likelihood down to 10% over the weekend from about 70% in May. That suggests markets were either pricing in a recession scenario that was "too high in early May or it's too low now," Laperriere said. "The broader tariff risk is arguably completely priced out of markets, though individual companies and sectors that would be adversely impacted by them have generally underperformed," he wrote in a report in early August. Ultimately, perhaps, the biggest unknown remains the quixotic "Trump factor," which can't be quantified, Brian Gardner, Stifel's chief Washington policy strategist, said in an interview. "He can change his mind at any given time, and has, as some of these deals have progressed," he said. "There's nothing to prevent him from changing his mind again down the road."
