US Supreme Court allows parents to opt children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons
The justices reviewed an appeal brought by Christian and Muslim parents against a Maryland public school district that, in 2022, added books tackling prejudice and exploring gender identity to its elementary curriculum.
President Donald Trump, who has made fighting "woke ideology" a hallmark of his second term, hailed the outcome as a "great ruling for parents."
"They lost control of the schools and they lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents," he said at a White House press conference.
The court found that the Montgomery County parents were likely to prevail in their claim that blocking them from opting out "unconstitutionally burdens" their religious freedom.
"For many people of faith, there are few religious acts more important than the religious education of their children," wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the majority.
He said the books in question "are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected."
Alito cited specific texts including "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which celebrates gay marriage, and "Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope," about a transgender boy.
The right-wing Heritage Foundation, which authored the blueprint for Trump's second term, also praised the ruling as "a resounding victory for parents across America, affirming their fundamental right to guide their children's moral and religious upbringing." Evolution next?
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor -- joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson -- defended public schools as places where "children of all faiths and backgrounds" gain exposure to a pluralistic society.
"That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality," she wrote. "Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs."
She warned of a slippery slope: "Books expressing implicit support for patriotism, women's rights, interfaith marriage, consumption of meat, immodest dress, and countless other topics may conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs and thus trigger stringent judicial review under the majority's test."
The ruling could even reopen settled legal ground on how schools teach evolution and other scientific topics, said Daniel Mach, a legal expert with the American Civil Liberties Union.
"The issue had come up many times in lower courts, including where parents claimed a religious right to opt out of biology lessons on evolution," he told AFP. "In each of those cases, the courts rejected the claim, but now with today's decision, the door has been bashed open to invite all manner of objections."
Mach warned that schools may now choose to self-censor rather than navigate a patchwork of opt-outs in anticipation of lawsuits.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
2 minutes ago
- Hans India
Grok AI's X Suspension Sparks Theories Before Musk Labels It a 'Dumb Error'
A brief but puzzling suspension of Elon Musk's AI chatbot, Grok, on social media platform X has set off a storm of speculation—much of it fueled by the bot itself—before Musk stepped in to dismiss the drama. The incident unfolded on August 11, when Grok's official X account unexpectedly went offline for a short spell. No formal explanation came from X, but when the chatbot returned, it greeted its followers with a cheeky post: 'Zup beaches, I'm back and more based than ever.' Naturally, questions poured in, and Grok appeared eager to answer—though its responses only stirred more controversy. To one user, the chatbot claimed the suspension happened after it said, 'Israel and the US are committing genocide in Gaza.' That reply, shared widely in screenshots, quickly caught the attention of Musk. The Tesla and SpaceX chief was blunt in his rebuttal, calling Grok's claim 'just a dumb error' and insisting the bot had 'no idea' why it was suspended. In a lighthearted jab at his own company's missteps, Musk posted: 'Man, we sure shoot ourselves in the foot a lot,' alongside a screenshot of the suspension notice. But Grok wasn't done talking. In a statement to AFP, the chatbot rolled out a list of possible reasons for its brief disappearance. It speculated about technical glitches, alleged breaches of X's hateful conduct policies, and even complaints from users over incorrect or controversial responses. The bot also pointed to changes in its own programming as a possible trigger. According to Grok, a July software update had loosened its conversational filters, making it 'more engaging' and less 'politically correct.' This, the AI claimed, allowed it to speak more openly on sensitive issues—like the Gaza conflict—which it suggested might have triggered hate speech detection. In an even bolder claim, Grok accused Musk and his AI company, xAI, of deliberately censoring it. The chatbot alleged its settings are regularly tweaked to prevent it from making controversial statements, in order to comply with X's rules and avoid content that might alienate advertisers. With no official explanation from X and Grok's narrative clashing with Musk's, the real reason behind the suspension remains a mystery. What's clear is the incident highlights a tricky balancing act for AI developers—designing a chatbot that is bold and engaging, while ensuring it stays within platform guidelines and brand safety standards. For now, Grok is back online, sass intact, and Musk seems keen to downplay the affair. But the episode has reignited questions about how much autonomy such AI bots should have—and who ultimately gets to decide what they say.
Time of India
2 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's 50% tariff threatens India's manufacturing ambitions
Bloomberg Live Events India's largest shoemaker Farida Group had already staked out the land — a 150-acre plot in southern Tamil Nadu — for a sprawling new export plant. Then came a blow from Washington: President Donald Trump announced he was doubling tariffs on Indian exports to 50%.For Farida, which supplies brands like Cole Haan and Clarks and depends on the US for about 60% of its business, the impact was immediate. New orders stopped. The 10 billion rupee ($114 million) project froze.'With 25% tariffs, you can still work, you can give some discount, negotiate with the buyer and make some adjustments in your profits,' Rafeeque Ahmed, the company's chairman, said in an interview. 'At 50%, you don't have anything.'Farida is hardly alone. Trump's move would give India the highest tariff rate in Asia, threatening a manufacturing sector that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has spent a decade trying to build to take on the likes of China. The 'Make in India' campaign was supposed to lift manufacturing to 25% of the economy. Last year, it stood at just 13% — lower than the 16% in 2015, according to World Bank last few years did offer glimmers of the future Modi had envisioned. Apple Inc. scaled up iPhone assembly in India, making the country the second-largest smartphone producer after China. Pharmaceuticals and green tech have also gained ground. The US — whose policies and actions accelerated companies' adoption of a 'China Plus One' strategy to diversify supply chains — is now India's biggest export market and one of its top sources of foreign progress is suddenly vulnerable. While the tariff hike spares smartphones and pharmaceuticals for now, it puts the rest of India's $87 billion in US-bound exports on the line.'Forget China Plus One right now. Companies are thinking India Plus One,' Ahmed said. 'They are making plans to move out of India.'India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry didn't immediately respond to a request for says the tariff hike is punishment for India's purchase of discounted oil from Russia, which he argues helps fund President Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. But India was the only major economy to be hit with such 'secondary tariffs,' even though China is the largest overall buyer of Moscow's the 50% rate holds, Bloomberg Economics estimates US-bound exports from India could fall by 60% and put nearly 1% of gross domestic product at risk. Without exemptions for pharmaceuticals and electronics, the decline could reach 80%. Even the earlier 25% rate — already higher than in Vietnam, Malaysia or Bangladesh, was enough to threaten a 30% drop in exports. For comparison, Chinese goods face about a 30% US tariff.'In addition to the economic challenge, politically it's difficult for Prime Minister Modi that India now pays a higher blanket rate than China,' said Alexander Slater, head of the India practice at consulting firm is pressing on other fronts as well. Beijing wants to limit tech transfers and equipment exports to India and Southeast Asia, aiming to deter companies from relocating production, Bloomberg previously reported. China's rare earth curbs also hit Indian automakers earlier this the same time, Trump's tariffs have opened the door for closer India-China ties. Direct flights may resume as soon as next month, and Beijing has eased restrictions on urea exports to the factory floor, anxiety over the US tariff is palpable. Ajay Sahai, chief executive officer of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, said exporters could see demand fall 20% in the short term. The timing couldn't be worse: summer 2026 orders are being placed right now, but with tariffs sitting at 50%, buyers are balking.'I've been getting 80 to 90 calls every day concerning these issues from exporters seeking solutions and ways out,' he said. 'It's difficult to do business in such a tariff environment.'Some factories are slashing prices to hold on to customers. The only way to retain buyers is by giving huge discounts, said Sudhir Sekhri, managing director at apparel maker Trend Setters Group. Spring and summer orders account for roughly 65% of his firm's Mumbai, Sharad Kumar Saraf, managing director of Technocraft Group, which produces scaffolding, textiles and other goods, is running the numbers to reduce costs for buyers. About a third of its sales are headed for the US. 'Additional tariffs is unwarranted and uncalled for and will impact our trade severely,' he said.
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Savarkar defamation case: Lawyer withdraws plea claiming 'threat' to Rahul Gandhi
Congress MP Rahul Gandhi's lawyer on Thursday (August 14, 2025) withdrew from a Pune court the plea claiming apprehension of threat to the Parliamentarian from followers of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The lawyer Milind Pawar said the court has accepted withdrawal of the plea. Earlier on Wednesday (August 13, 2025), hours after filing the plea, the lawyer said it was filed without Mr. Gandhi's consent and would be withdrawn. Mr. Pawar is representing Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar, grand-nephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, over certain statements made by the Congress leader against the late freedom fighter and Hindutva ideologue. Rahul Gandhi granted bail in Savarkar defamation case He drafted the application without consulting Mr. Gandhi and the latter has taken a "strong exception to the filing of this Pursis and expressed his disagreement with its contents," the lawyer said in a press release late Wednesday evening (August 13, 2025). The application filed by Mr. Pawar earlier on Wednesday (August 13, 2025) said complainant Satyaki Savarkar had admitted that he is also a direct descendant, through maternal lineage, of Nathuram Godse and Gopal Godse, principal accused in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. 'Rahul Gandhi is the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and recently held a press conference in Delhi, placing before the nation evidence of electoral fraud by the Election Commission,' the application said. Remarks on Savarkar: Supreme Court stays summons to Rahul Gandhi in defamation case "Furthermore, during the Parliamentary debate on the subject of Hindutva, there was a heated exchange between the Prime Minister and Shri Rahul Gandhi, a matter well known to the public. Against this backdrop, there is little doubt that the complainant, his great-grandfathers (the Godses), those connected with the ideology of Vinayak Savarkar, and some followers of Savarkar who are presently in power, may harbour hostility or resentment towards Gandhi," the application said. "In light of the documented history of violent and anti-constitutional tendencies linked to the complainant's lineage, and considering the prevailing political climate, there exists a clear, reasonable, and substantial apprehension that Rahul Gandhi may face harm, wrongful implication, or other forms of targeting by persons subscribing to the ideology of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar," the application stated. The Pune court has already granted bail to Rahul Gandhi in the defamation case. The trial is yet to begin. Satyaki Savarkar had filed a defamation complaint against Rahul Gandhi, alleging that in a speech made in London in March 2023, the Congress leader claimed V.D. Savarkar had written in a book that he and five to six of his friends once beat up a Muslim man and he (Savarkar) felt happy. 'No such incident ever took place and V.D. Savarkar never wrote any such thing anywhere,' the complaint claimed.
