Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks.
The justices reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material.
The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end.
The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them.
The school district introduced the storybooks, including 'Prince & Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man
.The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries.
Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a 'hoax' and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat.
The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year.
Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit.
At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the 'opt outs' had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn't send their children to public schools.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
16 minutes ago
- India Today
Trump says presidency is a very dangerous profession, riskier than bull riding
US President Donald Trump, during an unscheduled press briefing at the White House on Friday, reflected on the dangers of holding the nation's highest office. His remarks came as he celebrated a major US Supreme Court ruling that limits the authority of federal judges to block presidential policies with nationwide to reporters, Trump mentioned he occasionally feels physical reminders of the July 13, 2024, incident when a bullet grazed his ear during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. "I get that throbbing feeling every once in a while," he said. "But you know what? That's okay. This is a dangerous business."advertisementTrump compared the dangers of being president to other dangerous professions. "You have race car drivers as an example, 1/10 of 1 per cent die. Bull riders, 1/10 of 1 per cent . That's not a lot, but it's - people die. When you're president, it's about 5%. If somebody would have told me that, maybe I wouldn't have run. Okay? This is, this is a very dangerous profession." Among the 45 US presidents, four have been assassinated, and some have endured severe threats or assaults. Trump is in his second term and has been targeted with numerous threats throughout and following his election ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS In addition to the July incident, Trump allegedly evaded another assassination attempt on September 15, 2024, while golfing at his West Palm Beach resort. The perpetrator in that incident faces five federal charges and has pleaded not guilty. The July shooter, in turn, was killed by Secret Service agents after he opened fire during the Pennsylvania event when one of the attendees was killed and two others were WITH IRAN Trump also cited past intelligence that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had planned to assassinate him, something Tehran denies. This is just days after US attacks on Iranian nuclear presidency has been characterised by vigorous rhetoric against political adversaries and a larger effort to increase executive power. On the basis of an investigation by Reuters, over 300 politically motivated acts of violence have happened in the U.S. since January 6, 2021, when a mob attacked the Capitol representing an intensely polarised and combustible period in American politics.- EndsWith inputs from ReutersMust Watch
Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Uttarakhand High Court vacates stay on panchayat elections
Observing that the repetition of reservation in seats is minuscule and in compliance with Article 243D of the Constitution, the Uttarakhand High Court vacated the stay on panchayat elections and ordered that the process be resumed. The pleas, which prompted the stay on June 23, were by a clutch of petitioners arguing that the government's decision to nullify the existing reservation rotation for the panchayat polls and bring about a new rotation has prevented them from being able to contest. Under the reservation rotation system, constituencies are reserved for various categories for three terms, after which the quota goes to other seats. With a new rotation starting this year, the petitioner had said a seat that had been reserved for the last three terms would again be reserved this year, preventing him from contesting the election. The division bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra heard the counsel for the government who argued that the repetition was conducted on the recommendations of a report by a committee and was in compliance with the provisions of Article 234 D of the Constitution (pertaining to the reservation of seat in Panchayati Raj system). While arguing, the counsel for the state had relied on the Supreme Court's verdicts on withholding elections. 'The apex court has held that withholding election is a breach of constitutional mandate, for any reason, and even the SC cannot do it, even under article 142. This constitutional mandate that elections should proceed at any cost is inviolable,' the Advocate General had said. On Friday, the HC said that the rulings of the Supreme Court that the counsel relied on elucidated one invariable rule that the constitutional courts may stall the election process where there is no compliance with the constitutional mandate regarding reservation under Article 243-D of the Constitution of India. Aiswarya Raj is a correspondent with The Indian Express who covers South Haryana. An alumna of Asian College of Journalism and the University of Kerala, she started her career at The Indian Express as a sub-editor in the Delhi city team. In her current position, she reports from Gurgaon and covers the neighbouring districts. She likes to tell stories of people and hopes to find moorings in narrative journalism. ... Read More
Mint
29 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump's Court Win Opens a Path to Clear Hurdles to His Agenda
The US Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of US courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. 'Fair Game' 'Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump said at a press conference in the White House Friday that the administration will 'promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and 'stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.' The Trump administration has made it a priority to contest court orders that block policies on a nationwide, or universal, basis, although the controversy over whether those types of rulings are an appropriate use of judicial power has been brewing for years. Conservative advocates won such orders when Democratic presidents were in office as well. Noting the mounting pushback and debate, judges in dozens of other cases involving Trump's policies have limited their orders against the administration to the parties that sued or within certain geographical boundaries. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation whose practice includes suing the federal government, said she didn't see the ruling as a total 'retreat' from judges' authority to enter universal orders going forward. Multiple Paths 'It's addressing the case where a plaintiff is getting relief that applies to everyone across the country merely because judges think that it's an important issue,' she said. 'But it doesn't change the case where the plaintiff needs that relief.' Boden offered the example of a challenge to government spending, in which the only way to halt an unlawful action would be to stop payment of federal dollars across the country, not just to individual plaintiffs or in certain areas. Trump's opponents say the justices' decision still leaves them with multiple paths to sue the administration over actions they contend are unlawful and even to argue for nationwide relief. Those options include class action lawsuits, cases seeking to set aside agency actions under a US law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and even continuing to argue that nationwide relief is the only way to stop harm to individual plaintiffs, like parties did in the birthright citizenship cases. But they also acknowledged the court significantly raised the burden of what they have to prove to win those types of orders. 'This is going to make it more challenging, more complicated, potentially more expensive to seek orders that more broadly stop illegal government action,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said. 'It is watering down the power of federal courts to check government misconduct.' The Supreme Court sent the birthright citizenship cases back to lower court judges to reconsider the scope of orders pausing Trump's restrictions while the legal fight on its constitutionality continues. The justices did not rule on the core question of whether the policy itself is lawful. The administration can't fully enforce the birthright policy for at least another 30 days. Democratic state attorneys general involved in the birthright litigation highlighted language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion that the court didn't shut off the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. Speaking with reporters after the ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said that he and his Democratic colleagues would 'assess' the impact on other cases. He said they already had been judicious in asking judges for nationwide relief as opposed to orders that restricted administration policies in specific states. 'The court confirmed what we've thought all along — nationwide relief should be limited, but it is available to states when appropriate,' Platkin said. ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
