Supreme Court signals support for Maryland parents who object to LGBTQ books in public schools
'I'm surprised this is the hill to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, citing the county's diverse population and Maryland's history as a haven for Catholics.
The county school board introduced the storybooks as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity.
Advertisement
Parents sued after the school system stopped allowing them to pull their kids from lessons that included the books. The parents argue that public schools cannot force kids to participate in instruction that violates their faith, and they pointed to the opt-out provisions in sex education classes.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The schools said allowing children to opt out of the lessons had become disruptive. Lower courts backed the schools, prompting the parents' appeal to the Supreme Court.
Five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella and Peter Pan, the school system's lawyers wrote.
In 'Prince and Knight,' two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom, and each other. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle will not have as much time for her after he gets married. His partner is a man.
Advertisement
'Love, Violet' deals with a girl's anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl. 'Born Ready' is the story of a transgender boy's decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. 'Intersection Allies' describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid.
Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents' group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing and inappropriate for young schoolchildren.
The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing what the parents want is 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year.
A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Beware the employee activists threatening to bring down British business
Employers have perhaps never faced more challenging or extensive legal obligations than those present today. From the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill that is set to become law later this year to the rise of sensitive social and political issues within the workforce, our recent survey of more than 500 businesses found there is a new legal landscape that many employers are struggling to navigate. First, there is the issue of cost. Some 81pc of employers told us they expect the Employment Rights Bill to increase business costs, with 47pc intending to meet these by scaling back on future recruitment plans and a third saying they intend to make headcount reductions among current staff. Second, there is a knowledge gap. 58pc of employers said they knew little to nothing about the legislative changes coming in, despite it being described by the Government as 'the biggest upgrade to workers' rights in a generation'. Third, we found that even when employers think they understand the changes, many are confused about what they are actually required to do. For example, although broadly supportive of more stringent protections against sexual harassment, employers are barely able to distinguish between the existing law and the new provisions that are being introduced, our survey found. This was also true of issues like trans rights, which 64pc of respondents told us they felt 'well prepared' to deal with. But our survey was conducted shortly before the Supreme Court handed down its seminal decision on the meaning of 'sex' under the Equality Act 2010. From the intense public interest the decision has generated, it is reasonable to assume that not all employers may have judged this correctly. Why does any of this matter? Well, for one thing, because getting it wrong can end up in expensive and reputation-damaging litigation that an employer is unlikely to win if they have not been paying attention to their obligations. And if employers already think the Bill is going to drive up business costs, then finding themselves in court won't help. But it also matters because we found that employers are confronting an increasingly politicised workforce where issues that may have no relationship to the workplace itself are becoming topics of intense debate. For every social issue we asked about, from climate change to Israel and Gaza, employers told us it had at least doubled in salience in recent years. And this was particularly likely to be the case if the employer had taken a position on certain issues in the past (say the Ukraine War or Black Lives Matter). We found that once the employer expressed a view on one issue, the more likely they were to be expected to have a position on every issue. This means employers are increasingly being drawn into contentious issues where strongly held views may conflict, and there is a heightened imperative to strike the right balance between competing perspectives. And yet we found that employers are very often getting that balance wrong. Take, for example, the use of social media. Almost 40pc of employers who have a social media policy told us that they routinely reviewed the social media posts of staff and a quarter told us that they had either sacked or disciplined a current member of staff on the basis of something they had written online. Asked why they had taken disciplinary action, and almost 70pc told us that this was because they feared that what the employee had written could cause 'reputational damage' to the business. Around 60pc said it was because it could 'cause offence to other employees', roughly twice the proportion who said they had considered whether it impacted on the employee in question's ability to discharge their professional duties. But from a legal point of view, all of this must be viewed through the prism of the Court of Appeal's landmark decision in Higgs v Farmor's School that was handed down in February of this year. In a decision that was viewed as a vindication of free speech, the Court held that to discipline or dismiss an employee because they had expressed a religious or protected philosophical belief (here, a 'gender critical' view and criticisms of same sex marriage) to which the employer objected, could be unfair and amount to unlawful discrimination. They said it was insufficient to say that other employees had been offended because the employer 'does not have carte blanche to interfere with an employee's right to express their beliefs simply because third parties find those beliefs offensive.' None of which is to say that employees are free to say what they like either. The court described a balancing exercise in which relevant considerations might include whether the comments were made on a professional or personal account, whether guidance had been given about their post, what they had actually said (as opposed to what a third party may have chosen to read into it) and whether their post impacted on their ability to perform their duties. All of which adds up to a tricky situation for employers facing a more politicised (and often polarised) workforce. Protecting one set of views against another not only risks confrontation with members of staff but could also break the law. More than ever, employers need to prepare themselves with sound legal advice, clear internal communications with staff and a robust crisis plan for dealing with these kinds of eventualities. Because getting it wrong in an era defined by employee activism isn't just a management problem, but one that could impact the share price, affect consumer trends or even hit the balance sheet. Laura Farris is a former employment barrister and ex-Tory MP; Lord Andrew Cooper is former director of strategy at Downing Street. Both are partners at FGS Global Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
South Korea President Lee's election law violation hearing postponed indefinitely, court says
SEOUL (Reuters) -A Seoul court said on Monday it will indefinitely postpone a trial of President Lee Jae-myung on charges of violating election law in 2022. South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May, before Lee was elected, that Lee had violated election law by publicly making "false statements" during his 2022 presidential bid, and sent the case back to an appeals court. The Seoul High Court, which had scheduled a hearing for the case on June 18, said on Monday that it will postpone the hearing "to be decided later" without a date, a court spokesperson confirmed. Lee's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The court said its decision to postpone the hearing was due to "Constitution Article 84", without elaborating. South Korea's Constitution, Article 84, says a sitting president is "not subject to criminal prosecution while in office" for most crimes. However, legal experts are divided on whether that applies to ongoing trials that were already prosecuted before a president was elected. The National Court Administration under the Supreme Court gave as its opinion that judges of each court where Lee's trials are being held will have to decide whether to stop or proceed, according to its statement to a lawmaker in May. "The court in charge of hearing the case will determine whether Article 84 of the Constitution should be applied to a criminal defendant who was elected in the presidential election," the statement said. Lee's ruling Democratic Party, which controls parliament, is planning to pass a bill this week which suspends ongoing trials for the incumbent president, local broadcaster KBS reported on Monday. The Constitutional Court may be asked to rule whether the bill is unconstitutional, legal experts have said.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Alexandre de Moraes: Brazilian judge in showdown with far-right
With his steely gaze and bald pate, Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes has emerged as one of the most powerful and polarizing people in Brazil. In the 56-year-old judge's sights is far-right ex-president Jair Bolsonaro, accused of plotting to cling onto power despite his failed October 2022 re-election bid. A showdown with tech titan Elon Musk has meanwhile put Moraes in the crosshairs of US President Donald Trump's administration, which has hinted it could deny visas to foreign officials who threaten US nationals or residents over social media posts. Moraes shut down Musk's X network in Brazil, one of its largest markets, for 40 days for failing to tackle disinformation, mostly shared by supporters of Bolsonaro. Musk reacted with fury at the time, branding Moraes an "evil dictator cosplaying as a judge" and accusing him of "trying to destroy democracy in Brazil." Bolsonaro also has called Moraes a "dictator," while his son Eduardo, an MP, has lobbied for US sanctions against the "totalitarian" judge. Moraes ordered that the younger Bolsonaro be placed under investigation for alleged obstruction of justice. - Hero or villain? - Known by his nickname, "Xandao," Moraes looms large over a deeply divided Brazil. The immensely powerful judge, who previously headed the Superior Electoral Tribunal (TSE), is hated by the far right, which accuses him of censorship and abuse of office. To others, the muay thai aficionado is a hero on a mission to save Brazil's young democracy. There was little in Moraes's background to hint he would become a thorn in the side of conservatives. The constitutional law expert worked as a Sao Paulo state prosecutor, and went on to become state security secretary. Known as a hardliner, he drew criticism from left-wing activists, who accused him of repressing social movements. He served as justice minister under center-right ex-president Michel Temer, who named him to the Supreme Court in 2017. "He's a political animal," constitutional law expert Antonio Carlos de Freitas told AFP. Supreme Court insiders call him a pragmatist. But his pursuit of Bolsonaro and Musk's X showed a steelier side. Moraes has presided over a slew of cases targeting Bolsonaro, barring the so-called "Trump of the Tropics" from running for office until 2030 over his attempts to discredit the electoral system. But it is the coup investigation that threatens to definitively torpedo Bolsonaro's political comeback bid. The 70-year-old former army captain risks up to 40 years in prison if convicted of plotting to prevent leftist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking power. Prosecutors say the plot included a plan to arrest and even assassinate Lula, his vice president Geraldo Alckmin and Moraes. - 'Political animal' - Moraes was an omnipresent figure during the polarizing 2022 election campaign, aggressively using his rulings to fight election disinformation on social media. That included blocking the accounts of some prominent conservative figures, leading to his standoff with Musk, who has been accused of turning his social media platform into a megaphone for right-wing conspiracy theories. The married father of three gives few interviews, and rarely posted on his X account, where he had a million followers, before closing it in February. "Freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom of aggression," he has said. "It doesn't mean the freedom to defend tyranny." Still two decades away from the mandatory retirement age for judges in Brazil of 75, Moraes has been cited as a possible future candidate for president. He has never discussed any such ambitions publicly. msi-rsr/jhb/cb/sla/sst
