Supreme Court to hear case on LGBTQ-themed storybooks and parents' right to opt out
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a closely watched case that could reshape the role of parental rights and religious freedom in public education.
At issue is whether a Maryland school district violated the First Amendment by requiring elementary school students to engage with LGBTQ+ storybooks that include topics about gender transitions and same-sex relationships, without allowing parents to opt out.
The policy was implemented to disrupt "cisnormativity" and promote inclusivity, according to Supreme Court documents. Initially, the school allowed parents to opt their children out of these lessons, but later reversed this decision, eliminating the opt-out option and not notifying parents when such content was being taught.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts Swoops In To Save Trump Firing Decision
Parents, supported by religious freedom organizations, argue that this policy infringes upon their First Amendment rights by compelling their children to engage in instruction that contradicts their religious beliefs. The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school.
Thomas More Society attorney Michael McHale told Fox News Digital in a previous interview that "while there is an opt-out statute in state law, the school initially abided by it."
Read On The Fox News App
"The school decided to yank the opt-out exception, so to speak, and it really triggered the issue of whether the Constitution requires an opt-out in that circumstance," McHale said.
Lawsuit Tracker: New Resistance Battling Trump's Second Term Through Onslaught Of Lawsuits Taking Aim At Eos
"For the Fourth Circuit to say there was no religious burden, it really seems radical, and given how pressing that issue of school curriculum on sexual orientation, gender identity is, I think it raises an issue worth the Supreme Court's attention," he said.
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed several executive orders related to gender policies in federal institutions. McHale said these actions could reduce legal conflicts involving religious rights, such as disputes over whether teachers must use students' preferred pronouns in schools.
Scotus Rulings This Term Could Strengthen Religious Rights Protections, Expert Says
Mahmoud v. Taylor is one of three major religious cases the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for this year.
Earlier this month, the high court heard a case brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group's bid for tax relief, which could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions.
At issue in that case is whether the Wisconsin branch of Catholic Charities, a social services organization affiliated with Catholic dioceses across the country, can successfully contest the state's high court determination that it is ineligible for a religious tax exemption because it is not "operated primarily for religious purposes."
The third case is about whether a Catholic online school can become the first religious charter school in the U.S.Original article source: Supreme Court to hear case on LGBTQ-themed storybooks and parents' right to opt out
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
What's Harder? Planning Interest Rates, Or Harvard's Class Of 2029?
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS - JUNE 29: People walk through the gate on Harvard Yard at the Harvard ... More University campus on June 29, 2023 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admission policies used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Constitution, bringing an end to affirmative action in higher education. (Photo by) Regarding the makeup of Harvard's student body, President Trump thinks 15 percent is a more advisable number than 25 when it comes to international students. Quite reasonably Trump's critics, and surely many who are fans of Trump, are astounded by his conceit. How could the President effectively plan Harvard's student body? Also, since foreign students pay full tuition, it's entirely possible that their payments make it possible for needier Americans to secure spots at Harvard. Or maybe not. What's important with Harvard, and with all schools, is that Presidents, Senators, experts and agitators more broadly should stay out of their admission decisions. And for those who say that Harvard is 'unique' since so many federal dollars flow its way, please stop right there. The thinking is nonsensical. Precisely because the federal government is so large, and for being large operating well beyond its constitutionally limited scope, theoretically nearly every U.S. individual, business and non-profit university is getting something from the government. Let's not expand on the wrong of a federal government lacking boundaries through the excusal of even worse trespasses. Hands off individuals, businesses, and universities. Plus, the arrogance of it all! Harvard is easily one of the most difficult 'fat envelopes' in the world to attain, yet Trump thinks he can plan the class's demographic makeup? That's like the government planning U.S. imports or exports…Oh wait, they sometimes do that. Or try to. Ok, it's like the government attempting to plan the cost of credit to our alleged non-inflationary betterment…Oh wait, they presume to do that too. Interviewed recently by New York Times reporter Colby Smith about the direction of interest rates, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland president Beth Hammack seemingly wrung her hands as she told Smith, 'I legitimately do not know which way this is going to break.' Hammack added that she would 'rather wait and move quickly to play catch up if I really don't know what the right move is. And right now, I really don't know what the right move is based on all of the information and policies that we're responding to.' Some reading the above will conclude that Hammack was being modest, sober in making a difficult assessment about what's ahead, stuff like that. They would conclude incorrectly. The only correct answer from central bankers wouldn't be a professed willingness to delay blind stabs at market intervention, but to instead instruct Smith on the absurdity of the question. Lest everyone forget, people borrow money for what it can be exchanged for. In other words, the cost of credit is the cost of accessing exchange media that can be exchanged not for one market good, but for every market good in the world. Which is a reminder that other than perhaps the dollar that exists as the world's currency, the price of credit is easily the most important price in the world. And exactly because we're all so different now and in the future, there's an interest rate for every single person, business and university in the world, all arrived at through the relentless collision of infinite global inputs every millisecond of every day. Remember this as Hammack and central bankers like her oh so modestly tell Smith 'I legitimately do not know which way [what the Fed will do with 'interest rates'] this is going to break." Wrong answer, and wrong question. Hammack should have replied to Smith that a central banker planning something as complicated as the cost of credit would be as foolhardy as a president planning Harvard's class of 2029, multiplied by many millions.
American Military News
an hour ago
- American Military News
Trump escalates battle with Columbia University, threatens accreditation
The Trump administration has launched a process to try to strip Columbia University of its accreditation over a finding the school had failed to meaningfully protect Jewish students from harassment. On Wednesday, the U.S. Education Department notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Columbia's accreditor, that the school was in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws and accordingly does not meet the commission's standards. The government issued the finding May 22. 'Just as the Department of Education has an obligation to uphold federal anti-discrimination law, university accreditors have an obligation to ensure member institutions abide by their standards,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. A rep for the accreditor confirmed it had received the letter that afternoon but declined to comment further. The threat to Columbia's accreditation is a serious one. Most federal funding, including financial aid, hinges on a school being accredited. While it appears that only accreditors could revoke Columbia's status, the accrediting entities themselves have to be recognized by the Education Department. 'Columbia is aware of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights today to our accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and we have addressed those concerns directly with Middle States,' said Columbia spokesperson Virginia Lam Abrams. 'Columbia is deeply committed to combating antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it.' The dramatic escalation of the Trump administration's assault on Columbia came as the New York City-based Ivy League school is negotiating with federal agencies over $400 million in canceled grants and contracts, mainly impacting medical research. The university has made various concessions to the government — including more oversight of Middle Eastern studies and ways of cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests — that have so far proved insufficient to restore the funding. McMahon's statement threatened the federal funding that Columbia receives through student financial aid. In a press release, the Education Department said accreditors must take 'appropriate action' against schools such as Columbia to come into compliance within a specified period. 'Accreditors have an enormous public responsibility as gatekeepers of federal student aid. They determine which institutions are eligible for federal student loans and Pell Grants,' McMahon said. 'We look forward to the commission keeping the department fully informed of actions taken to ensure Columbia's compliance with accreditation standards.' Columbia goes through the accreditation process about every 10 years and was recently being evaluated by the president of Johns Hopkins University, according to Stand Columbia Society, a group of faculty and alumni — who as of last month said the undertaking was 'going very smoothly.' 'Accreditation was never designed to be political. In fact, one of the things that has made accreditation so successful was how the apolitical and obscure machinery of quality control hummed in the background,' Stand Columbia wrote in a newsletter last month. 'But now, for the first time in a hundred years, that backstage machinery is being pulled into the political spotlight. Where it goes from here is uncertain. What's clear is that accreditation is no longer something most people can afford to ignore.' Columbia became the epicenter of campus protests against Israel's military campaign in Gaza when students pitched an encampment last spring calling on their administrators to divest from the war. The demonstration came to a head when a smaller group of protesters occupied Hamilton Hall, prompting the university to call in the NYPD and make mass arrests. More recently, dozens of students took over Butler Library to protest the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia graduate student, and what they see as Columbia's role in his arrest by federal immigration authorities in early March. Pro-Palestinian students and their allies have accused Columbia and the Trump administration of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. ___ © 2025 New York Daily News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
LGBTQ+ community rallies in DC against 'coordinated attack' on rights
LGBTQ+ community rallies in DC against 'coordinated attack' on rights DC is hosting WorldPride at a time when rights for the queer community are being threatened. Show Caption Hide Caption Jim Obergefell talks LGBTQ+ rights 10 years after Supreme Court ruling Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that legalized gay marriage nationwide, looks back on its impact 10 years later. WASHINGTON − Thousands of members of the LGBTQ+ community and their supporters were gathering in the nation's capital Sunday for a rally and march for rights marking WorldPride 2025, a global festival promoting LGBTQ+ visibility and awareness. The events hosted by DC's Capital Pride Alliance, which is celebrating 50 years of Pride in the nation's capital, are part of Pride Month, which comes amid a seismic shift in federal policy as the Trump administration turns back the clock on diversity, equity and inclusion rights the queer community battled to attain. Organizers warn that while today's targets are gender, sexual orientation and race, decades of progress in all human rights face "coordinated, systematic attack." "Our fundamental freedoms − and our very democracy − are at risk," organizers say on the website promoting Sunday's rally and march. "And if we fail to recognize the urgency of this moment, we'll only have ourselves to blame. Resist the marginalization and persecution of people just for being who they are." The rally, which comes a day after a massive parade, will take begin at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. It will be followed by a march to the U.S. Capitol Building. A WorldPride DC Street Festival and concert are also planned. WorldPride comes to DC: Queer community vows to be 'louder than ever' President Donald Trump marked his first day in office by signing an executive order to dimantle diversity, equity and inclusion practices. The transgender community has been a primary target of the ensuing directives. They incude moves to end gender-affirming care for minors, revive a ban on transgender people in the military, remove references to the community from the Stonewall National Monument website and direct that federal agencies recognize only two sexes, male and female − affecting the ability of transgender people to identify on items such as passports. The actions have led some corporate sponsors to end support of Pride parades and prompted safety concerns for LGBTQ+ people traveling internationally to the WorldPride festival. Trump's 'bullying': LGBTQ+ advocates decry President Trump's actions during Pride Month "WorldPride is occurring at a crucial time, bringing together voices from around the world to support the LGBTQ+ community's ongoing fight for equality, visibility, and justice," the organization says on its website. "We encourage everyone in our global community to participate in this historic moment. By showing up and supporting Pride events globally, the LGBTQ+ community will be visible, vigilant, and heard."
