Gorsuch and Maryland school district lawyer have wild exchange over children's LGBTQ storybook: 'Not bondage'
The lawyer for a Maryland school district and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch had a wild exchange this week about a children's book amid an ongoing case brought by parents who want to be able to opt their children out of reading LGBTQ storybooks in their public school.
Gorsuch was asking Alan Schoenfeld, the attorney representing Montgomery County Public Schools, about "Pride Puppy!" a 32-page book that tells the story of a family celebrating Pride Day when their dog gets lost in the parade and the effort to reunite the pup with his loved ones.
The rhyming alphabet book, which was described as "affirming and inclusive" by its publisher, allows readers to spot items starting with each of the letters of the alphabet while offering "a joyful glimpse of a Pride parade and the vibrant community that celebrates this day each year."
The book was previously used in the district's pre-kindergarten curriculum.
The Supreme Court Appears To Side With Parents In Religious Liberty Dispute Over Storybooks
"And they're being used in English language instruction at age 3?" Gorsuch asked.
Read On The Fox News App
"'Pride Puppy!' was the book that was used for the pre-kindergarten curriculum. That's no longer in the curriculum," replied Schoenfeld.
"That's the one where they're supposed to look for the leather and things - and bondage – things like that," Gorsuch responded.
"It's not bondage. It's a woman in a leather..."
A "Sex worker?" asked Gorsuch.
"No. That's not correct. No," replied Schoenfeld.
Parents Tell Scotus: Lgbtq Storybooks In Classrooms Clash With Our Faith
"Gosh, I read it...drag queen?" said Gorsuch.
Schoenfeld said the leather is actually a woman in a leather jacket and that "one of the words is drag queen."
The high court was hearing arguments in the case brought by religious parents who say young children can't be expected to separate a teacher's moral messages from their family's beliefs.
Eric Baxter, the attorney representing Maryland parents in Mahmoud v. Taylor, told the justices that the school district violated the First Amendment by denying opt-out requests for books that "contradict their religious beliefs," even while allowing exemptions for other religious objections – such as books depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.
Lawsuit Tracker: New Resistance Battling Trump's Second Term Through Onslaught Of Lawsuits Taking Aim At Eos
Baxter said teachers were required to use the materials in class after the district approved certain LGBTQ-themed curriculum books in 2022.
"When the books were first introduced in August of 2022, the board suggested they be used five times before the end of the year," he said. "One of the schools, Sherwood School, in June for Pride Month said that they were going to read one book each day."
The district initially allowed parents to opt out their children for religious concerns but reversed course by March 2023, citing concerns about absenteeism and administrative burdens.
Among the other storybooks at the center of the case is "Prince & Knight," a modern fairy tale aimed at children ages 4 to 8, which tells the story of two men who fall in love after joining forces to defeat a dragon and later marry.
Another book frequently referenced during oral arguments was "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which follows a young girl processing her favorite uncle's decision to marry another man.
Click To Get The Fox News App
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case by late June.
Fox News Digital's Jamie Joseph contributed to this report. Original article source: Gorsuch and Maryland school district lawyer have wild exchange over children's LGBTQ storybook: 'Not bondage'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Supreme Court rejects Republican bid to bar some provisional ballots in Pennsylvania
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has rejected a Republican appeal and left in place a Pennsylvania court decision allowing people to cast provisional ballots when their mail-in votes are rejected for not following technical procedures in state law. The court released the decision Friday, after an 'apparent software malfunction' sent out early notifications about orders that had been slated to be released Monday. A technological error also resulted in an opinion being posted early last year. The justices acted in an appeal filed by the Republican National Committee, the state GOP and the Republican-majority election board in Butler County. Pennsylvania's top court ruled last year that the county must count provisional ballots that were cast by two voters after they learned their mail-in ballots were voided because they arrived without mandatory secrecy envelopes. Pennsylvania Democrats had urged the court to stay out of the case.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'This is part of the game': Trump cuts out Musk
Donald Trump talked to a long list of media outlets on Friday to make it clear that he's not thinking about or talking to Elon Musk after their feud exploded into public view on Thursday. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to sensitive data held by the Social Security Administration. Michael Steele, Brian Barrett, Nayyera Haq, and Stephen Cloobeck join Stephanie Ruhle for The 11th Hour Nightcap.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Grants Musk-Less DOGE Access to Social Security Data
Elon Musk may be persona non grata at the White House, but DOGE lives on. The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency should be allowed access to Social Security Administration data, lifting a previously issued injunction that blocked the department from doing so. While the court's majority did not provide a detailed explanation of their ruling, they did write, 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.' The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning the urgency of the application and expressing concerns about the potential privacy risks that would result from the ruling. She wrote, 'In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The Trump administration had previously argued that DOGE employees needed access to SSA data in order to halt fraudulent payments, but a federal judge in Maryland ruled that DOGE being granted such access violated federal law and put millions of people's data at risk. Two unions—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers—brought the lawsuit alongside the Alliance for Retired Americans. The groups argued that allowing DOGE broader access to individuals' personal data would violate the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 'The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure—and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," their lawyers wrote. The data DOGE employees now have access to includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information. In her dissent, Jackson argued that the Supreme Court had 'truly lost its moorings,' by allowing the move and bending its usual standards to accommodate the Trump administration, adding, 'The Court is… unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration.'
