Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks.
With the six conservative justices in the majority, the court 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 lack of an 'opt-out,' Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court, 'places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion.'
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that exposure to different views in a multicultural society is a critical feature of public schools. 'Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Today's ruling ushers in that new reality.'
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.
'By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools,' said Elly Brinkley, a lawyer for the group's U.S. Free Expression Programs. 'In practice, opt outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold."
Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the Maryland parents at the Supreme Court, said the decision was a 'historic victory for parental rights."
"Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission," Baxter said.
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.
Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
41 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Bahraich mazar demolition: HC seeks state's response on contempt plea
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has sought the state government's response on a contempt petition alleging that the Uttar Pradesh government violated an earlier assurance given to the court that no coercive action would be taken against the Dargah Hazrat Sayyed Mohammad Hashim Shah (also known as Lakkad Shah Mazar) situated in Bahraich district. On June 10, UP govt had informed the high court that it had stopped the demolition drive at Lakkad Shah and three other mazars situated in the Murtiha Range forest of Katarniaghat Wildlife division. (For Representation) Justice Brij Raj Singh on June 25 directed the state counsel to seek instructions in light of the allegations made in the contempt plea directing to list the matter as fresh on July 3, 2025. 'Learned counsel for the applicant will serve a copy of the contempt application to the learned Standing Counsel today, who is directed to seek instructions in the matter as there is allegation that there is violation of the undertaking given by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel in the order dated 10.06.2025 passed in Writ-C No.5870 of 2025,' the court ordered. The contempt plea moved by the committee of management Dargah claimed that despite the state's categorical submission before the court on June 10, 2025, that the demolition had been stopped and no coercive steps would be taken for the next four weeks, the structure was fully razed on June 13. Earlier, on June 10, the UP government had informed the high court that it had stopped the demolition drive at Lakkad Shah and three other mazars situated in the Murtiha Range forest of Katarniaghat Wildlife division in Bahraich. The state had also assured the court that no further demolition or coercive action would be taken for a period of four weeks. This assurance was recorded by a division bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, which was hearing a petition filed by the managing committee of Waqf No. 108, which oversees the dargah where Urs has reportedly been celebrated since the 16th century. The committee had moved the HC after the forest department initiated the demolition of these mazars, citing encroachment on protected forest land under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. In the contempt plea, the waqf committee has alleged that on June 13, just 3 days after the state's assurance, the police personnel took the caretakers of the mazar and other people into custody and dropped them nearly a kilometre away from the site. The plea further alleges that demolition at the site resumed soon thereafter and that the entire structure was razed and now only the graves are intact. The plea also accuses the authorities of wilful and deliberate breach of the undertaking and flouting the court's direction of maintaining the status quo at the site.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Biden joins thousands paying final respects to slain Minnesota lawmaker and husband
ST. PAUL, Minnesota, - Thousands of mourners, including former U.S. President Joe Biden, filed through Minnesota's state Capitol Rotunda on Friday to pay final respects to slain lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, who were gunned down by an assassin earlier this month. The couple lay in state in St. Paul on the eve of a private funeral set for Saturday morning, two weeks after a man impersonating a police officer shot them to death at their home in what authorities are treating as a politically motivated murder. For several hours, members of the public lined up in a column of mourners stretching across the front plaza of the state Capitol building and along an adjacent boulevard. After entering the building, people walked single-file past the Hortmans' flower-bedecked caskets. A portrait of each stood next to their respective coffins. Perched between them was an urn bearing the remains of their golden retriever, Gilbert, along with a photograph of the pet. The dog, too, was shot in the attack and later euthanized. Biden arrived at the statehouse late in the afternoon. After the public was cleared from the rotunda for security purposes, the Democratic former president was ushered in alone. He paused for a moment in front of the caskets, then exited the building. Following his departure, the rotunda was reopened to the public, and the procession of mourners resumed. Still more people joined the line outside, hoping for a chance to pay their respects. The viewing was scheduled to end at 5 p.m. local time. Representative Hortman, the top-ranking Democrat in the Minnesota House, became the first woman to lie in state in the St. Paul Capitol Rotunda, according to the Minnesota Star Tribune. Her husband was believed to be the first person other than a military figure or public official to be so honored. The suspect in their June 14 killings, Vance Boelter, 57, is also accused of shooting and wounding a second Democratic legislator, state Senator John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, in their home a few miles away.' The accused gunman was arrested on the night of June 16 following a massive two-day manhunt that was the largest in state history. Boelter faces state and federal murder charges. According to prosecutors, investigators recovered notebooks from his car and residence that included the names of dozens of Democratic legislators, along with abortion-rights advocates. The shootings unfolded against a backdrop of increasing political violence in the U.S. in an era of extreme social and partisan polarization. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Bad news for undocumented immigrants! ICE detentions to rise as US President Donald Trump will... Details here
AP FILE - A federal agent holds handcuffs outside immigration court, May 21, 2025, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File) The US Congress is moving closer to approving a large spending package that would provide billions of dollars for immigration enforcement. This funding would help President Donald Trump carry out his campaign promise of deporting millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United immigration plans have long been a core part of his agenda. The issue was central to his 2024 presidential campaign and continues to be his strongest area of support. According to a recent NBC News poll, 51% of US adults approve of how he handles immigration, while 49% disapprove. Even without completing a border wall, illegal crossings have fallen. Trump and his team highlight this decline as a success of their broader enforcement Supreme Court recently made a ruling that allows the Trump administration to continue challenging the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship guarantees. This ruling, though limited in scope, supports Trump's push for stricter immigration plan requires major increases in immigration personnel. A House bill includes $8 billion over five years to add 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees. This would grow ICE's staff by nearly 50%. An additional $858 million is planned for bonuses to help hire and retain these agents. Border Protection could receive $2 billion more for bonuses, with up to $30,000 per new turnover has made immigration enforcement more difficult. Former ICE official Chris Musto said many agents have left their posts. He added that investigators trained for complex cases are now being redirected to routine immigration administration has also reassigned staff from other federal departments to focus on immigration cities like Los Angeles, local resistance to Trump's policies has led to the deployment of National Guard troops. Federal agents have also received support from US Marines to ensure enforcement activities say the result of new funding and staffing will lead to more public immigration raids and a visible federal presence in communities. Also Read: Squid Game Season 3 Ending: Who is Front Man and who wins the game? Here's new twist in last episode While the administration highlights arrests of people with criminal records, most enforcement actions have targeted those without any criminal convictions. Tom Homan, Trump's border policy advisor, says more agents mean more criminals will be removed from the streets. However, recent data shows most ICE arrests involve non-criminals. White House staff have reportedly pressured ICE leaders to increase daily arrests. In May, top advisor Stephen Miller demanded 3,000 detentions per urgency has led to confusion about which undocumented immigrants should be targeted. Trump initially said some workers in industries like farming and hospitality would be exempt, but that position later changed. Also Read: Reacher Season 4 Casting Update: Christopher Rodriguez-Marquette joins cast. See which role will he play Polls show divided views. Americans support targeting violent offenders but oppose workplace raids, ending asylum protections and expanding detention in Congress have largely opposed Trump's plan. Most Republicans support it, but some, like Senator Rand Paul, have called for reduced draft Senate bill includes less funding than the House version. However, after internal GOP discussions, the Senate plan is expected to match the House's.A recent report showed that 71% of ICE arrests and 67% of detainees had no criminal records. Nearly half of the 55,000 people in ICE detention in late June had no convictions or pending say Trump's enforcement efforts have shifted from targeting serious criminals to focusing on nonviolent individuals. What does Trump's deportation plan include? Trump's plan includes hiring thousands of new ICE agents, expanding detention facilities, and conducting wide-scale immigration enforcement, including detaining undocumented immigrants without criminal records. How do Americans feel about the plan? Polls show Americans support deporting violent offenders but oppose workplace raids, expanded detention, and removal of asylum protections. Views on the plan vary by political affiliation.
