Sotomayor says public education is doomed without mandatory gay and trans story hour
The end is nigh.
That seems to be the message this week from the three liberal justices at the Supreme Court when faced with the nightmarish prospect of parents being able to remove their young children from mandatory classes on gay, lesbian and transgender material.
The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor was a roaring victory for parents in public schools. The Montgomery County, Md. school system fought to require the reading of 13 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' texts in the English and Language Arts curriculum for kids from pre-K through 12th grade. That covers children just 5-11 years old.
The children are required to read or listen to stories like 'Prince & Knight' about two male knights who marry each other, and 'Love Violet' about two young girls falling in love. Another, 'Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,' discusses a biological girl who begins a transition to being a boy.
Teachers were informed that this was mandatory reading, which must be assigned, and that families would not be allowed to opt out. The guidelines for teachers made clear that students had to be corrected if they expressed errant or opposing views of gender. If a child questions how someone born a boy could become a girl, teachers were encouraged to correct the child and declare, 'That comment is hurtful!'
Even if a student merely asks, 'What's transgender?,' teachers are expected to say, 'When we're born, people make a guess about our gender and label us 'boy' or 'girl' based on our body parts. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong.'
Teachers were specifically told to '[d]isrupt' thinking or values opposing transgender views.
Many families sought to opt out of these lessons. The school allows for such opt-outs for a variety of reasons, but the Board ruled out withdrawals for these lessons. Ironically, it noted that so many families were upset and objecting that it would be burdensome to allow so many kids to withdraw.
The Montgomery County school system is one of the most diverse in the nation. And Christian, Muslim, and other families objected to the mandatory program as undermining their religious and moral values.
The majority on the Supreme Court ruled that, as with other opt-outs, Montgomery County must allow parents to withdraw their children from these lessons. The response from liberal groups was outrage. Liberal sites declared 'another victory for right-wing culture warriors,' even though the public overwhelmingly supported these parents.
However, the most overwrought language came not from liberal advocates but liberal justices.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared that there 'will be chaos for this nation's public schools' and both education and children will 'suffer' if parents are allowed to opt their children out of these lessons. She also worried about the 'chilling effect' of the ruling, which would make schools more hesitant to offer such classes in the future. It was a particularly curious concern, since parents would like teachers to focus more on core subjects and show greater restraint in pursuing social agendas.
The majority pushed back against 'the deliberately blinkered view' of the three liberal justices on dismissing the objections of so many families to these lessons. Nevertheless, even though such material was only recently added and made mandatory, the liberal justices declared that 'the damage to America's public education system will be profound' and 'threatens the very essence of public education.'
The truth is that this decision could actually save public education in the U.S.
Previously, during oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had shocked many when she dismissed the objections of parents, stating that they could simply remove their children from public schools. It was a callous response to many families who do not have the means to pay for private or parochial schools.
Yet, it is a view previously expressed by many Democratic politicians and school officials. State Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Wis.) once insisted: 'If parents want to 'have a say' in their child's education, they should homeschool or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.'
Iowa school board member Rachel Wall said: 'The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.'
These parents still harbor the apparently misguided notion that these remain their children.
Today, many are indeed following Jackson's advice and leaving public schools. The opposition of public-sector unions and many Democratic politicians to school vouchers is precisely because families are fleeing the failing public school systems. Once they are no longer captive to the system, they opt for private schools that offer a greater focus on basic educational subjects and less emphasis on social activism.
Our public schools are imploding. Some are lowering standards to achieve 'equity' and graduating students without proficiency skills. Families are objecting to the priority given to political and social agendas to make their kids better people when they lack of math, science, and other skills needed to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace.
This decision may well save public schools from themselves by encouraging a return to core educational priorities.
It may offer some cover for more moderate school officials to push back against such demands for mandatory readings to young children.
What the majority calls 'the deliberately blinkered view' of the dissent could just as well describe the delusional position of public school boards and unions. Schools are facing rising debt and severe declines in enrollment, yet unions in states like Illinois are demanding even more staff increases and larger expenditures.
The liberal justices are right about one thing: This is a fight over 'the essence of public education.' However, it is the parents, not the educators (or these justices) who are trying to restore public education to meet the demands for a diverse nation.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
12 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president's hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Chief Justice Urges Political Leaders to Tone Down Rhetoric
On the day after the Supreme Court issued a decision that sharply curtailed the power of federal judges to block Trump administration policies, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. spoke before a hotel ballroom filled with them. He didn't say a word about it. The chief justice on Saturday gave a public interview with Judge Albert Diaz, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, at a judicial conference in Charlotte attended by lower court judges who will be expected to parse and follow the Supreme Court's directive limiting their ability to block executive branch policies nationwide. During the discussion, the chief justice hinted at the stress of the end of the court's term, which concluded on Friday, a time that he described as 'a lot of sharp division and some sharp adjectives.' During its last session of the term, the justices released six major opinions, including one that found lower court judges had most likely exceeded their authority by repeatedly issuing nationwide injunctions, powerful judicial tools that block an executive action not just for the parties in a case but for the whole country. Legal experts say the ruling will create complex new questions for lower court judges, as they sort out how to deal with executive actions they believe they may violate the law. But the chief justice was not asked for — and did not volunteer — any guidance or thoughts on the role of the federal judges who have been flooded with legal challenges to Trump administration policies. He did urge political leaders to limit heated rhetoric about judges. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump doesn't have to grab power; Republicans are giving it to him
Republican majorities in the Congress and conservatives on the Supreme Court are ceding power instead of protecting it, giving President Donald Trump more and more control over what the Constitution separated in three. But Republican lawmakers cheered when Trump launched an air offensive against Iran rather than balking that many were kept out of the loop. House Speaker Mike Johnson didn't seem to mind reports that the White House would be limiting its information-sharing with lawmakers. His response suggested concern about leaks than about guarding lawmakers' duty to oversee the executive. Regulating international trade is something the Constitution puts on lawmakers' plates. A series of laws over the past hundred years slowly gave power over tariffs to the president, but Trump has taken that authority and weaponized it to make demands of other countries, as he did Friday when he cut off trade talks with Canada, the latest twist in a trade war he engineered and is scripting like a reality show. Conservative justices limited the ability of district court justices to issue nationwide injunctions against executive policies. 'This really brings back the Constitution,' President Donald Trump said without a whiff of irony at the White House on Friday. The decision also literally lets him ignore the plain language of the 14th Amendment, at least for now. 'This is a fundamental shift in the balance between the powers of the presidency and the powers of the courts,' said Elie Honig, CNN's senior legal analyst. 'This ruling that we just got impacts everything about the way that the presidency exercises power.' Justice Amy Coney Barrett said there is no precedent in US law for nationwide injunctions. She harked back to English law and the 'judicial prerogative of the King' in a very technical and history-based decision that, she said intentionally 'does not address' the issue of birthright citizenship in either the 14th Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act. 'This is as clear as the Constitution gets about questions,' said Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional law professor at Princeton, appearing on CNN Friday. But the case won't get to the court this year. The short-term result of the decision could well be that at least some babies born in the US may not have US citizenship, despite the very clear language in the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court told lower courts to take another look at the cases and reassess their injunctions. The court also seemed to invite class action lawsuits against Trump's executive order. Nationwide injunctions from district court judges have bedeviled presidents of both parties, but Trump's brash view of his power has made for a record number of actions by lower courts. Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi framed the decision as a reclaiming of power from lower court judges in liberal districts. 'They turned district courts into the imperial judiciary,' she said. But the liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that this is the type of slippery slope that puts the entire US system of government at risk. 'I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish, and from there, it is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' she wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more.' Conservative justices last year bought into Trump's argument that presidents should be afforded a kind of super immunity from prosecution for nearly any action they take while in office. Chief Justice John Roberts said the court 'cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.' Rather, it had something larger in mind. 'Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case,' he wrote. That decision all but ended Trump's prosecution during the Biden administration for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. He subsequently won the 2024 presidential election. If granting Trump immunity was meant to preserve separation of powers, it was a whiff, since, as CNN's Joan Biskupic has written, Trump is using that decision almost as a blank check. He 'boasts of his ability to define the law,' she wrote. 'That was meant for the babies of slaves; it wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation,' Trump said of the 14th Amendment at the White House on Friday. The 14th Amendment was actually enacted after the Civil War as an answer to the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision of 1857, an ugly blot on the court's history that declared Black people ineligible for citizenship. By not addressing the issue, the court at least seems open to allowing Trump to change the amendment's meaning, for now, without going through the process of changing the Constitution or passing legislation through Congress — which is a hard thing to square with Roberts' idea of separation of powers principles. In part because Trump does things like issue executive orders that plainly seem to violate a constitutional amendment and intentionally sets up court clashes over laws like the Impoundment Act, which are designed to limit presidents' ability to ignore Congress, his actions have led to a record number of nationwide injunctions. Now, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, he will try to move forward with a laundry list of stalled agenda items he read off at the White House Friday: 'Including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people,' he said. If the Supreme Court gives him power, he'll use it.
