
Supreme Court's conservatives are poised to strike down elementary school policy denying opt-outs for LGBTQ+ books
The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday signaled it will require schools to provide opt-outs for parents who have religious objections to LGBTQ+ books read in elementary schools, an outcome that would continue the court's years-long push to expand religious rights.
During more than two hours of feisty oral arguments in a high-profile case involving a suburban Washington, DC, school district, the court's six conservatives appeared to be aligned on the idea that the decision to decline opt-outs for books burdened the rights of religious parents.
'It has a clear moral message,' Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court's conservative wing, said during a spirited exchange with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
'It may be a good message,' Alito added. 'It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.'
The court's liberal justices repeatedly pressed the idea that simply exposing students to ideas in a book could not possibly burden religion. A majority of the court seemed to suggest in a 2022 decision that mere exposure to ideas doesn't amount to a coercion of religious beliefs.
'Looking at two men getting married – is that the religious objection?' Sotomayor pressed the attorney for the parents who challenged the books. 'The most they're doing is holding hands.'
But others on the court seemed to be open to finding a way to side with the religious parents without finding 'coercion' took place.
Several of the key conservative justices in the middle of the court asked questions suggesting they are concerned about the approach taken by the Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland. After all, some of them noted, state law already requires its schools to opt students out of sex education if requested.
'As far as simply looking at something, looking at the image of Muhammad is a serious matter for someone who follows that religion, right?' Chief Justice John Roberts asked in a question geared at disputing the argument that looking at material can't burden religion.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh at one point appeared to be scolding the schools' position, noting that the state of Maryland was founded on 'religious tolerance, a haven for Catholics escaping persecution in England.'
'I guess I'm surprised,' Kavanaugh told the lawyer representing the schools, 'this is the hill we're going to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty, given that history.'
The arguments – which came toward the end of a Supreme Court session that has become increasingly defined by legal challenges involving President Donald Trump – at times seemed especially tense. At one point, Sotomayor attempted to interject as Alito was speaking about one of the books involved in the dispute.
'Wait a minute,' Sotomayor jumped in.
'Can I finish, please?' Alito fired back.
As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue in the case. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary.
Another book, 'Born Ready,' tells the story of Penelope, a character who likes skateboarding and wearing baggy jeans. When Penelope tells his mother that he is a boy, he is accepted. When Penelope's brother questions his gender identity, their mother hugs both children and whispers, 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.'
Some of the justices appeared to be taken aback by the content. At one point, the attorney for the schools was explaining one of the books – which has since been removed from the curriculum – when Justice Neil Gorsuch jumped in. Gorsuch and several of his colleagues indicated they had read the books.
'That's the one where they are supposed to look for the leather and things – and bondage, things like that,' Gorsuch said.
'It's not bondage,' the schools' attorney, Alan Schoenfeld, interjected.
'Sex worker, right?' Gorsuch said.
'No,' Schoenfeld said.
'Drag queen?' Gorsuch continued, after being reminded of the part of the book at issue by his neighbor on the bench, Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
'The leather that they're pointing to is a woman in a leather jacket,' Schoenfeld said, who acknowledged the students had the option of looking for that at the end of the book. 'And one of the words is 'drag queen.''
Kavanaugh, who often sits at the ideological center of the court, repeatedly came back to an argument that it wouldn't be a huge problem for the district to simply allow parents to opt their children out.
'I'm not understanding why it's not feasible,' he said.
But that argument has drawn sharp criticism from the schools and its allies. The schools said that an earlier effort to allow opt-outs was disruptive. And, they say, it would allow parents who object to any number of classroom discussions to opt out of a wide range of curriculum they find offense. What if, they argued, a student made a presentation in class about their same-sex parents: How could the teacher or principal be aware and handle notification of any possible presentation a parent might find objectionable?
'Once we say something like what you're asking for us to say, it'll be like opt-outs for everyone,' said liberal Justice Elena Kagan.
The school district told the court that the books are used like any other in the curriculum: Placed on shelves for students to find and available for teachers to incorporate into reading groups or read-alouds at their discretion. But the parents who object to the books said they are in active use. One challenge with the case is that it reached the Supreme Court before the record was fully developed in lower courts.
The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the schools 2-1 last year, ruling that the record on how the books were being used was too scant at the early stage of litigation to determine whether the material burdened the religious rights of the parents.
The 6-3 conservative Supreme Court has sided with religious interests in every case it has considered in recent years – allowing a high school football coach to pray on the 50-yard line, permitting taxpayer money to be spent on religious schools and backing a Catholic foster care agency that refused to work with same-sex couples as potential parents.
The parents challenging the policy were represented by the religious legal organization Becket, which has brought several successful cases to the high court in recent years and has more pending.
In that sense, the Montgomery County schools were at a disadvantage before they even entered the courtroom on Tuesday. Kavanaugh seemed to flick at that point shortly before the arguments were over.
'Thank you,' Kavanaugh told Schoenfeld, sympathetically. 'It's a tough case to argue.'
This story has been updated following oral arguments.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
24 minutes ago
- CBS News
Colorado town orders organizers to cancel "No Kings" anti-Trump rally citing event conflict
This Saturday, June 14, hundreds of "No Kings" rallies are expected to take place across the country, including in Colorado, protesting authoritarianism and coinciding with President Trump's birthday, the U.S. Army's 250th birthday, and Flag Day. But in Douglas County, one woman says the Town of Parker stopped her from organizing the event because it coincided with the Parker Days festival a half-mile away. Town officials cite safety as the reason the rally can't occur at the same time as its largest festival, but organizers say it violates their free speech rights. Signs inside Carolyn Williamson's Parker home make it clear how she feels about the Trump administration. "The evil, evil terrifying king," Williamson said, while gesturing to a papier-mâché Trump head she made, before moving to a pile of homemade signs. "I try to make more than one of each kind of theme." Carolyn Williamson, of Parker, Colorado, discusss her efforts to organize a protest in town and being denied a permit by town officials, which she says is a violation of her free speech rights. CBS "He claims to love the Constitution, but he only picks and chooses the things that he likes," Williamson said, citing concerns over recent immigration policy under Trump's leadership. When she learned of plans for "No Kings" rallies across the country on Trump's birthday, she decided to organize one in her community. "We need one in Parker," Williamson said. "We have to use our White privilege and speak up for those who can't while we can." Soon, nearly 400 people had signed up to attend, and Williamson began planning for their safety. "I took some safety and de-escalation training online," Williamson said. "The Boulder thing is at the forefront of everybody's mind. So I reached out to the Parker police." After initially being told she'd need a permit for an event of more than 100 people and would not be able to get one due to Parker Days, Williamson changed plans to host several small gatherings Saturday at intersections across town. But then Williamson says the town's attorney and police chief called to say the rally would need to be canceled because the town didn't have the resources to ensure its safety during Parker Days. "I said, 'well, what about our First Amendment rights?' And they said, 'Well, you're welcome to say anything you want, but you cannot be on public sidewalks that day. You can do it on another weekend,'" Williamson said. "I don't think that they have the constitutional right to deny us the right to protest." "In general, you don't need a permit to demonstrate on a public sidewalk," said Philip Chen, associate professor of political science at the University of Denver. "It's public land." Chen says governments can place some restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech, as long as those restrictions are content-neutral. "The Supreme Court has said it has to be not subject to the content of the speech. It has to be very narrowly tailored to what the government's sort of interest is, and they have to provide some sort of alternative way for that message to be communicated," said Chen. "Content neutrality is going to be the important thing," he continued. "If somebody stood on the sidewalk with a sign for the rally and was told to leave, and another person stood there with a sign saying, 'I love Parker Days,' they would have to also tell that person to leave, or else it wouldn't be what would be considered sort of content-neutral enforcement." While Chen says restricting the time and place of the demonstration for safety reasons likely does not violate First Amendment protections, he says the idea that even a small rally would not be allowed could be an overly restrictive use of time, place and manner allowances, especially if the gathering was small enough to not require a permit. According to the ACLU, "you don't need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don't obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don't have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons." The organization also says, "police may not break up a gathering unless there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety." The Town of Parker said in a statement: "The Town of Parker became aware of a rally that had been scheduled to occur within the Town on June 14, 2025, during the same time the Parker Days Festival is being held in the Town. Based on the considerable resources that the Town provides to ensure the safety of Parker Days attendees and event organizers, the remaining resources available to serve the rest of the Town and all residents and visitors is extremely limited. The Town would be unable to allocate sufficient staff and resources to ensure the safety and needs of the rally participants along with the residents and other visitors to the Town. The Town takes very seriously the safety and well-being of all residents and visitors and wants to ensure that everyone in the Town has the best possible resources available to them. While the Town is supportive of individuals' First Amendment rights, those rights must be balanced with the rights and safety of all other individuals and may be limited under the law if there are concerns related to things such as the timing of events. The Town is truly unable to accommodate another event during the weekend of Parker Days, as it will negatively impact the Town's ability to safely and properly respond to the routine matters within the Town. The Town did offer the rally organizer the ability to work with the Town to determine another possible date to hold the rally." O'Brien Park in Parker, Colorado is seen on Monday, June 9, 2025. CBS The town offered to find another date for the No Kings rally, but Williamson says the message can't wait. "Civil disobedience doesn't always align conveniently with current events," Williamson said. Other No Kings rallies will be held across the metro area, including in Castle Rock, Littleton, and Denver. Monday night, after her interview with CBS News Colorado, Williamson said she decided to still host the event. She says it will be a block-by-block rally Saturday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Williamson plans to organize peaceful demonstrators along Parker Road intersections from Lincoln Avenue to Hess Road. They will skip Mainstreet so as not to interfere with Parker Days.


Chicago Tribune
35 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
How the Vatican manages money and where Pope Leo XIV might find more
VATICAN CITY — The world's smallest country has a big budget problem. The Vatican doesn't tax its residents or issue bonds. It primarily finances the Catholic Church's central government through donations that have been plunging, ticket sales for the Vatican Museums, as well as income from investments and an underperforming real estate portfolio. The last year the Holy See published a consolidated budget, in 2022, it projected $878 million, with the bulk paying for embassies around the world and Vatican media operations. In recent years, it hasn't been able to cover costs. That leaves Pope Leo XIV facing challenges to drum up the funds needed to pull his city-state out of the red. Anyone can donate money to the Vatican, but the regular sources come in two main forms. Canon law requires bishops around the world to pay an annual fee, with amounts varying and at bishops' discretion 'according to the resources of their dioceses.' U.S. bishops contributed over one-third of the $22 million collected annually under the provision from 2021-2023, according to Vatican data. The other main source of annual donations is more well-known to ordinary Catholics: Peter's Pence, a special collection usually taken on the last Sunday of June. From 2021-2023, individual Catholics in the U.S. gave an average $27 million (23.7 million euros) to Peter's Pence, more than half the global total. American generosity hasn't prevented overall Peter's Pence contributions from cratering. After hitting a high of $101 million in 2006, contributions hovered around $75 million during the 2010's then tanked to $47 million during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many churches were closed. Donations remained low in the following years, amid revelations of the Vatican's bungled investment in a London property, a former Harrod's warehouse that it hoped to develop into luxury apartments. The scandal and ensuing trial confirmed that the vast majority of Peter's Pence contributions had funded the Holy See's budgetary shortfalls, not papal charity initiatives as many parishioners had been led to believe. Peter's Pence donations rose slightly in 2023 and Vatican officials expect more growth going forward, in part because there has traditionally been a bump immediately after papal elections. The Vatican bank and the city state's governorate, which controls the museums, also make annual contributions to the pope. As recently as a decade ago, the bank gave the pope around $62.7 million a year to help with the budget. But the amounts have dwindled; the bank gave nothing specifically to the pope in 2023, despite registering a net profit of $34.2 million, according to its financial statements. The governorate's giving has likewise dropped off. Some Vatican officials ask how the Holy See can credibly ask donors to be more generous when its own institutions are holding back. Leo will need to attract donations from outside the U.S., no small task given the different culture of philanthropy, said the Rev. Robert Gahl, director of the Church Management Program at Catholic University of America's business school. He noted that in Europe there is much less of a tradition (and tax advantage) of individual philanthropy, with corporations and government entities doing most of the donating or allocating designated tax dollars. Even more important is leaving behind the 'mendicant mentality' of fundraising to address a particular problem, and instead encouraging Catholics to invest in the church as a project, he said. Speaking right after Leo's installation ceremony in St. Peter's Square, which drew around 200,000 people, Gahl asked: 'Don't you think there were a lot of people there that would have loved to contribute to that and to the pontificate?' In the U.S., donation baskets are passed around at every Sunday Mass. Not so at the Vatican. The Vatican has 4,249 properties in Italy and 1,200 more in London, Paris, Geneva and Lausanne, Switzerland. Only about one-fifth are rented at fair market value, according to the annual report from the APSA patrimony office, which manages them. Some 70% generate no income because they house Vatican or other church offices; the remaining 10% are rented at reduced rents to Vatican employees. In 2023, these properties only generated $39.9 million in profit. Financial analysts have long identified such undervalued real estate as a source of potential revenue. But Ward Fitzgerald, the president of the U.S.-based Papal Foundation, which finances papal charities, said the Vatican should also be willing to sell properties, especially those too expensive to maintain. Many bishops are wrestling with similar downsizing questions as the number of church-going Catholics in parts of the U.S. and Europe shrinks and once-full churches stand empty. Toward that end, the Vatican recently sold the property housing its embassy in Tokyo's high-end Sanbancho neighborhood, near the Imperial Palace, to a developer building a 13-story apartment complex, according to the Kensetsu News trade journal. Yet there has long been institutional reluctance to part with even money-losing properties. Witness the Vatican announcement in 2021 that the cash-strapped Fatebenefratelli Catholic hospital in Rome, run by a religious order, would not be sold. Pope Francis simultaneously created a Vatican fundraising foundation to keep it and other Catholic hospitals afloat. 'They have to come to grips with the fact that they own so much real estate that is not serving the mission of the church,' said Fitzgerald, who built a career in real estate private equity.

an hour ago
Homeless people may be arrested after refusing offers of shelter in Silicon Valley
SAN FRANCISCO -- Homeless people who reject three offers of shelter could be arrested under a controversial proposal before the city council of the most populous city in California's Silicon Valley on Tuesday. The proposal being pushed by San Jose Mayor Matt Mahon is eye-opening because it comes from a liberal city headed by a Democrat in the left-leaning San Francisco Bay Area. It is among the stricter anti-encampment deterrents proposed by elected officials since the Supreme Court in 2023 made it easier to ban homeless people from camping on public property. And it's another sign of just how frustrated people have become with squalid tents lining sidewalks and riverbanks, and erratic behavior of those using drugs or in distress in a state with an estimated 187,000 homeless people. California is home to roughly a quarter of all homeless people in the country. Mahan says most people do accept offers of shelter. But he wants to make clear to the small percentage of people who refuse, that as the city builds more shelter and interim housing, they have a responsibility to move indoors. 'I think we need a cultural change, a culture of accountability for everyone involved,' said Mahan. 'I don't want to use the criminal justice system to make vulnerable people's lives harder. I want to use it as a last resort.' California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and former mayor of San Francisco, has repeatedly urged cities to ban encampments. Arrests for illegal lodging have soared in San Francisco, and its current mayor, Daniel Lurie, has reiterated that it is not appropriate for people to live outdoors. Advocates for homeless people say cracking down on encampments is traumatizing and even counterproductive. Forcing a person to clear out sets them back in their search for stability as they could lose important documents needed to apply for work and housing, they said. 'Pushing people with mental health needs or drug addiction into incarceration — without any crime committed — is both inhumane and ineffective,' said Otto Lee, president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in a written statement emailed Monday to The Associated Press. Lee and other county leaders are opposed to the mayor's proposal. They say they need more housing, beds and services, and not punishment. The 'responsibility to shelter' proposal does not mandate an arrest after three rejected offers. After talking with the city attorney's office and police, Mahan said it made more sense to give front-line outreach workers and police officers discretion to decide when to escalate or prioritize a situation. The city will set up a new six-officer quality of life unit within the police department. 'We don't want to overly tie their hands and tell them this is the only way to do it,' the mayor said. People who repeatedly violate the city's encampment code of conduct — which also includes keeping tents free of trash and not blocking the public right of way — could be sent to a recovery center for detox or petitioned for court-mandated treatment to mental health and substance use disorder care, Mahan said. San Jose has nearly 1,400 shelter spots and hopes to add another 800 by the end of the year. Officials are aware they do not have enough beds, and Mahan said that people will not be punished if beds are unavailable or the only options are unsuitable.