logo
Groups nationwide eye Supreme Court hearing on Montgomery County LGBTQ books in schools case

Groups nationwide eye Supreme Court hearing on Montgomery County LGBTQ books in schools case

Yahoo22-04-2025

The U.S. Supreme Court. (File photo by Danielle E. Gaines/Maryland Matters)
When the Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in Mahmoud v. Taylor, it will be considering whether Montgomery County parents have a right, on religious grounds, to opt their children out of classes in county schools that use LGBTQ+ friendly books.
But to the scores of religious, legal and educational groups across the country who have filed friend-of-the-court briefs, it's a case with national implications.
'Whatever rule the Court promulgates in this case will apply far beyond the circumstances of this dispute,' says a 30-page brief filed on behalf of the School Superintendents Association, Consortium of State School Boards Associations, Council of the Great City Schools and National School Attorneys Association. That brief does not support either side in the dispute, but asks the justices to tread carefully.
Most of the other briefs, however, are decidedly on one side or the other: With the parents who argue that the county policy infringes on their right to raise their children according to their religion, or with the school board that says the books are part of an inclusive curriculum and are not coercive or targeting any religion.
The case began at the start of the 2022-23 school year, when the county unveiled a list of 'LGBTQ+-inclusive texts for use in the classroom,' including books for grades as low as kindergarten and pre-K. After initially saying that parents could opt their children out of lessons that included those and other books, the school board reversed course in March 2023 and said opt-outs would not be allowed beginning in the 2023-24 school year.
Parents are allowed to opt their children out of parts of sex education classes, but not other parts of the curriculum, like language arts.
The parents sued the school board in May 2023, saying the inability to opt their children out of the classes infringes on their First Amendment freedom of religion rights. They also wanted the schools to notify them when lessons involving the books were coming up, and to plan alternative lessons for their children.
But school officials claim the books were not part of 'explicit instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in elementary school, and that no student or adult is asked to change how they feel about these issues.'
In its December filing that urged the Supreme Court to reject the case, the county said, 'MCPS (Montgomery County Public Schools) believes that representation in the curriculum creates and normalizes a fully inclusive environment for all students and supports a student's ability to empathize, connect, and collaborate with diverse peers and encourages respect for all.' It went on to say 'teachers are not permitted to use the storybooks to enforce a particular viewpoint.'
Lower courts have rejected the parents request for a preliminary injunction, with a divided panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the county policy did not have the coercion required to make it a burden on religious exercise.
In their petition to the Supreme Court, the parents cited a few of the elementary-aged books the school board includes as 'LGBTQ-inclusive' and the guidance for teachers that went with each:
'Born Ready,' a story about Penelope, a student who identifies as a boy. 'Teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, doctors guess about our gender, but we know ourselves best';
'Love, Violet,' a story about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance. 'Teachers are encouraged to have a think-aloud moment to ask students how it feels when they don't just like but like like someone'; and
'Intersection Allies,' a picture book for children to ponder what it means to be 'transgender' or 'non-binary' and asks, 'what pronouns fit you?'
Mark Graber, a regents professor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey Law School in Baltimore, said in an interview Monday that a Supreme Court decision in favor of the petitioners, or parents, would create 'an administrative nightmare.'
'There are a lot of religions out there. Schools have to figure out what violates religion, what parents they have to contact,' he said.
Graber said the court will have to determine whether county teaches the topics 'as secular' subjects.
'The parent has the right to go in and say, 'What are you teaching?' Public schools can teach one plus one equals two, regardless of what your religion says about the simpleness of mathematics,' he said. 'They can teach about different forms of couples, regardless of what religion says about the simpleness of different kinds of relationships.
'The crucial thing is public schools must teach it as secular,' he said. 'They may not praise or condemn any religion for holding opinions consistent with the public schools, or inconsistent.'
Even though parents have lost in lower courts on their preliminary injunction request, Graber said it makes senses for them to press the case with the current Supreme Court, given the justices' openness to free exercise claims.
'The court has been extraordinarily sympathetic to free exercise claims brought by evangelical Christians,' he said. 'They think they got the most sympathetic court they've ever had, so why not [petition the court]?'
The fact the high court will be hearing the case based only 'on an undeveloped and untested, preliminary injunction record,' and not hearings on the full merits of case in lower courts, was concerning to the school groups that filed the brief in support of neither side of the case.
'There are great risks presented by asking the Court to potentially adopt new rules for evaluating Free Exercise claims or constitutionalizing notice and opt out requirements,' said the brief from the School Superintendents Association, Consortium of State School Boards Associations, Council of the Great City Schools and National School Attorneys Association.
One other brief that supports neither side in the dispute came from the California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM), a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that focuses on 'eradicating the disparaging treatment of Hinduism' in that state's public schools.
The organization's brief proposes the court adopt a four-part test to determine if school policies violate free exercise rights: Does the curriculum material negate religious beliefs or practices?; does the curriculum material itself or the process through which it was adopted reflect targeted hostility toward religion or a particular religion?; does the material or the adoption process lack neutrality toward a particular religion?; and is the curriculum material coercive?
'The outcome of this case is going to clearly affect my client's rights, but whatever test the court comes up with … we have ideas in what would make sense in litigating the case,' Glenn Katon, counsel representing CAPEEM, said in an interview Monday.
'We're not there to help either party. We're there to try and get the court to adopt the test that makes sense, that will help Hindus get treated fairly in California,' he said. 'This case is very important for schools in California [and] even across the country.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Jim Jordan's 'In America' Rant Goes Very Wrong, Very Quickly
Jim Jordan's 'In America' Rant Goes Very Wrong, Very Quickly

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Jim Jordan's 'In America' Rant Goes Very Wrong, Very Quickly

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is getting called out on social media for a rant about flags that doesn't seem to apply to everyone. Jordan retweeted a message from the House Judiciary Committee ― which he chairs ― showing a Mexican flag at the scene of the chaotic protests in Los Angeles. He followed that up with a message of his own: We fly the American flag in America. — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) June 9, 2025 Jordan's critics flagged him on X with two quick reminders: that the First Amendment allows people to fly whatever flag they want... and that Jordan hasn't highlighted other flags flown, such as Confederate flags, especially at events in support of President Donald Trump. Trump supporters have also flown a number of flags that violate the U.S. Flag Code by including images of Trump and MAGA messages on them. Many of those types of flags and more have been on display at Trump events and during the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol carried out by Trump's supporters. Jordan's critics fired back with some pointed reminders: Like this? — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 9, 2025 I can fly whatever flag I want. It came free with my first amendment. — the german gentleman aka grubauer's #1 fan (@midaeros) June 9, 2025 Apparently not — Carlos Villarreal (@crlosvllarreal) June 9, 2025 🤔 — Jen (@JenResistedAGN) June 9, 2025 Like this? — Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) June 9, 2025 can't recognize the difference between a Confederate flag, a MAGA flag, and the stars and stripes. Ohio ain't sending their best. — emptywheel (check) (@emptywheel) June 9, 2025 Like this — Kathryn Horsman (@kathrynhorsman) June 10, 2025 We know what flag you fly… — JustTheFacts! ⚓️ 🇺🇸🦅 (@JustTheFacts_68) June 10, 2025 Like this? — Dianne Callahan (@DianneCallaha16) June 9, 2025 Is that so? — Dittie (@DittiePE) June 9, 2025 Like these? — Shady (@Shadywmn) June 9, 2025 Actually, being an American means you have the freedom to fly any flag you want. Just like the people you support marched a confederate flag through the Capitol on January 6. — Michael Freeman (@michaelpfreeman) June 9, 2025 wE fLy ThE aMrIcAn FlAg In AmeRiCa — 𝕋𝕙𝕖 ℍ𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕪 𝕠𝕗 ℂ𝕙𝕚𝕟𝕒 ℙ𝕠𝕕𝕔𝕒𝕤𝕥 (@thocpodcast) June 10, 2025 Go ahead, tell all the Irish, Italian, and Greek neighborhoods to take down their flags. Let me know how that goes. — Kay 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 💙💙F*CK PUTIN (@katelykeanon) June 9, 2025 Really?Is that new? — DKGray (@TheRealDKGray) June 9, 2025 wait until he sees all the flags during the World Cup — Yessi (@YESSISG16) June 10, 2025

Can you be legally punished for misgendering someone? Colorado says yes.
Can you be legally punished for misgendering someone? Colorado says yes.

USA Today

time34 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Can you be legally punished for misgendering someone? Colorado says yes.

Can you be legally punished for misgendering someone? Colorado says yes. | Opinion Colorado has threatened to sic the thought police on anyone who doesn't comply by using state-approved language about transgender people. Show Caption Hide Caption Jennifer Sey talks about starting the XX-XY Athletics company Jennifer Sey talks about starting the XX-XY Athletics company USA TODAY staff You'd think that after two significant losses at the U.S. Supreme Court, Colorado would tread more carefully with its anti-discrimination laws. No such luck. A new law, signed by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis in May, expands the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to make deadnaming and misgendering transgender individuals a punishable offense. California, not surprisingly, has tried something similar but on a more limited basis. The updated Colorado provisions have already attracted lawsuits on the grounds that the law violates the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment. Much like two other Colorado cases involving a cake baker and a web designer that reached the Supreme Court, this law pits free speech rights against public accommodation protections. At the heart of those cases, as well as this one, is the fact that the government – no matter how well-intentioned – cannot compel speech or chosen messages. Opinion: Democrats waste $20 million to learn why they lost men. Here's my free advice. And that's what Colorado's trans rights law would do, by claiming 'it is now a 'discriminatory practice' under Colorado law to refer to transgender-identifying individuals by their birth name (i.e., not their 'chosen name') or to use biological pronouns (i.e., not their preferred pronouns) in a place of public accommodation,' according to the first lawsuit, filed by a group of national and Colorado parental-rights organizations, including Defending Education. Forced gender ideology adherence? Here come the thought police. The law describes 'gender expression' as including someone's 'chosen name' and 'how an individual chooses to be addressed.' That is troublesome to the groups involved because a lot of the work they do centers on pushing back against gender ideology. Using biologically accurate terms is integral to their work. For instance, when discussing whether transgender students should participate in girls' sports, the debate is rooted in the biological differences between boys and girls. Now, the groups are at risk of violating the law when speaking in public spaces in Colorado. Opinion: Trump is right. Transgender athletes turn girls' track meets into a farce. 'H.B. 25-1312 was passed for the very purpose of suppressing traditional views on sex and gender and punishing those who refuse to address transgender-identifying individuals using so-called chosen names and preferred pronouns,' the lawsuit states. Those punishments could include investigations, lawsuits and fines, in addition to the possibility of 'participation in mandatory educational programs' if deemed necessary by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Thought police, anyone? 'I think it's the first time that we've seen a state actually try to cement in its own anti-discrimination canon a requirement to violate the First Amendment,' Sarah Parshall Perry, Defending Education's vice president and legal fellow, told me. She said the Supreme Court has made clear that in addition to the government forcing someone to communicate a message, forcing someone to silence themselves – essentially creating a heckler's veto – is a free speech violation. Businesses like XX-XY Athletics should be able to speak the truth The second federal lawsuit against Colorado's law was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of XX-XY Athletics, which was founded in Denver in 2024 by former Levi's executive Jennifer Sey. As the name implies, XX-XY Athletics is an athletic brand that unapologetically defends women's sports and spaces and has been outspoken about why biological men shouldn't be competing with women athletically. So using correct language is vital to the company's branding and advertising. 'Colorado continues to place itself on the wrong side of the law by forcing Coloradans to speak against their conscience,' said Hal Frampton, ADF senior counsel, in a statement. ADF is the law firm that secured wins for its Colorado clients – baker Jack Phillips and web designer Lorie Smith – in two cases that reached the Supreme Court. So it's well-positioned to intervene now. Opinion: Activists have made baker Jack Phillips' life miserable. Please leave him alone. Colorado wants to mandate 'kindness' for the LGBTQ+ community through its anti-discrimination laws. Yet, what state officials refuse to learn is that no law is above the Constitution. And in this case, requiring citizens to use language that's simply not true or accurate will never pass muster when squared with the First Amendment. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques

After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest
After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest

USA Today

time2 hours ago

  • USA Today

After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest

After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest | Opinion Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest. Show Caption Hide Caption Australian journalist shot with a rubber bullet in Los Angeles Australian journalist from 9News, Lauren Tomasi, was shot with a rubber bullet while reporting from the protests in Los Angeles. President Donald Trump and his band of faux-macho nogoodniks keep poking the city of Los Angeles, hoping it will squeal and create the kind of violent theater that gives right-wing media its life force. First they sent in the National Guard to address predominantly peaceful anti-ICE protests, but the sprawling city failed to adequately burn. Now they're sending in U.S. Marines to get the job done. It's an intentional, dangerous and wholly unnecessary provocation. And based on how Trump and other Republicans have reacted to the ongoing protests, we should all be clear on the administration's new rules for protesting in America. Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest For those who engage in liberal activities like reading and 'seeing things with your own eyes and believing they're real,' it might seem odd that the man who praised Jan. 6 insurrectionists as "great patriots" and then pardoned them all has the gall to call LA protesters 'insurrectionists.' Technically, there's nothing about the California protests that would make them an insurrection, while everything about the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, an effort to overturn a free-and-fair election, made it an actual insurrection. But that kind of fact-based thinking is now illegal, and protesters in Los Angeles and elsewhere need to understand that the First Amendment only applies to things Trump and Republicans want to hear. As border czar Tom Homan said on June 9 about the LA protesters: 'I said many times, you can protest. You get your First Amendment rights. But when you cross that line, you put hands on an ICE officer, or you destroy property or ICE says you impede law enforcement … that's a crime. And the Trump administration is not going to tolerate it.' Opinion: Trump lied about LA protests to deploy the National Guard. He wants violence. Correct. Unless you're a pro-Trump protester. In which case, breaking into a federal building, beating the snot out of police officers and destroying property is patriotic and easily pardonable. Rule No. 2: Protesters can only use American flags Video of California protesters waving flags from Mexico and other countries really upset a number of Republicans who have apparently never been in Boston on St. Patrick's Day. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said: 'This is an American city, and to be able to have an American city where we have people literally flying Mexican flags and saying 'you cannot arrest us' cannot be allowed.' If those protesters were waving a good old-fashioned American flag, it would be an entirely different story. But in Trump's America, flag choice matters. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called out 'left-wing radicals carrying foreign flags.' Vice President JD Vance declared on social media: 'Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers.' MIND THE FLAGS, PEOPLE! The rule seems pretty clear. Your First Amendment right only allows you to carry an American flag, unless you are a Trump supporter during an actual insurrection, in which case you can carry a Confederate flag, replace an American flag with a Trump flag or use an American flag on a pole to beat a police officer. Opinion: Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy Rule No. 3: No spitting on or disrespecting law enforcement officers In response to some LA protesters allegedly spitting on authorities, Trump declared on social media June 9: ' 'If they spit, we will hit.' This is a statement from the President of the United States concerning the catastrophic Gavin Newscum inspired Riots going on in Los Angeles. The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others. These Patriots are told to accept this, it's just the way life runs. But not in the Trump Administration. IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' Some might respond to this by saying, 'But the Jan. 6 insurrectionists whom you pardoned en masse did a lot more than just spit. They brutally attacked police officers, physically injuring more than 140 of them.' To which Trump would probably say: 'Shut up. Your First Amendment rights are hereby revoked!' Or he might say what he actually said when he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters after he was inaugurated Jan. 20: 'These are people who actually love our country, so we thought a pardon would be appropriate.' To clarify, the people who Trump thinks love this country, demonstrated by them loving him, are allowed to express that love by defacing a federal building they broke into and viciously assaulting police officers. People who Trump thinks don't love the country, demonstrated by them exercising their First Amendment right to protest things he doesn't want them to protest, will be beaten up for spitting. Follow Trump's protesting rules, or he'll call in the troops It's clear as mud, folks. Americans across the country should feel free to get out and protest, as long as it's for the right reasons and done in a way that aligns completely with the beliefs of Republicans and the Trump administration. Anything outside of that and they'll call in the National Guard. And the Marines. And, I guess, the flag police? Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store