
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
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sizewell C power station to be built as part of UK's £14bn nuclear investment
The biggest nuclear programme in a generation will 'get Britain off the fossil fuel rollercoaster', the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, has said, announcing £14.2bn to build a new nuclear power station and a drive to build small modular reactors. The multibillion-pound investment at Sizewell C on the Suffolk coast, which has been long expected, will create 10,000 jobs and power the equivalent of 6m homes. Nuclear will be one of the key investments Rachel Reeves will champion at Wednesday's spending review, which the chancellor hopes will overshadow uncomfortable decisions for the government including the U-turn on the winter fuel payment and a major row over police funding. Miliband said the 'golden age' of nuclear investment was critical to the government's net zero goals, which will probably require a significant increase in electricity demand, and said that it would not detract from investments in renewables. 'I'm doing this because of my belief that climate change is the biggest long-term threat facing us,' Miliband said. 'The truth is that we have this massive challenge to get off fossil fuels. That is the central driving ambition of the government's clean energy superpower mission. We know that we're going to have to see electricity demand at least double, by 2050. 'All of the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. In any sensible reckoning, this is essential to get to our clean power and net zero ambitions.' The announcement comes as part of the £113bn of new capital investment Reeves will announce in the spending review that the Treasury hopes will be the key theme – and enough to stave off further disquiet over expected cuts to day-to-day spending. On Monday, it emerged that all departments had settled with the Treasury after a deal was done with the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, who was deeply dissatisfied with funding for policing. The Home Office could still be forced to cut the overall number of police officers in the aftermath of its lengthy spending review negotiations with the Treasury. Whitehall sources said the department had been asked to look at all options including reducing officer recruitment, which would mean an overall cut in the headcount. On Monday morning, Cooper was the last minister still to reach a deal, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. On Monday afternoon, a source said that cuts to police numbers remained 'a possibility'. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has also privately complained to the Treasury about Met police funding and a failure to finance any of the capital's key transport infrastructure requests. On Monday evening it emerged there were concerns that some English regions, including London, would lose money to support local economic growth and tackle poverty through schemes such as the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, Growth Hub funding and the Levelling Up Fund. A source close to the London mayor said: 'If the Treasury go ahead with this cut it would be incredibly shortsighted. They say they want economic growth but their actions in failing to invest in new infrastructure in the capital and cutting local growth funds will actually damage our economy, not improve it. 'They say they want regional mayors to be the drivers of growth but then remove their levers to achieve growth.' Earlier on Monday, Reeves formally announced plans to restore the winter fuel payment to all pensioners with an annual income of £35,000 or less, after a furious backlash to the government's most unpopular policy to date. While the reversal was welcomed by Labour MPs worried about pensioner poverty and the political toxicity of the issue, there were concerns the £1.25bn price tag would mean more tax rises or spending cuts this autumn. The green light for the development at Sizewell C marks the end of a long 15-year journey to secure investment for the plant since the site was first earmarked for new nuclear development in 2010. Campaigners argued the development of the site would be hugely expensive compared with investment in other energy sources and would create only short-term job opportunities. The government announced Rolls Royce as the winners of a long-running competition on Tuesday for a bid to build one of Europe's first small modular reactor (SMR) programmes – a model that some in government hope could eventually attract private investment, especially from tech companies, which might build SMRs to power datacentres. The FTSE 100 manufacturer Rolls-Royce was the long-running favourite to be chosen to build the first British SMRs. Reeves will confirm the nuclear investment in her address at the GMB congress on Tuesday, including £6bn of investment to the nuclear submarine industrial base to deliver on recommendations in the strategic defence review. The investment also includes £2.5bn over five years for research and development of fusion energy. Combined, the Treasury said they would be vital to the UK's energy security, replacing the UK's dependency on fossil fuel markets with homegrown power. 'We need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance, because that is the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis,' Miliband said. He said projects such as these were also essential for making the economic case to voters that the transition to net zero would not come at a cost to their families. 'There aren't enough industries in this country that provide good jobs at decent wages with strong trade unions. Nuclear is one of them. This is absolutely about delivering the kind of economic change right across the country,' he said. He said investment in fusion in Nottinghamshire would be directly on the site of the old West Burton coal-fired power station. 'That is the transition in action – from an old coal-fired power station to a new fusion prototype plant,' he said. So for climate, for energy security, for jobs, I genuinely think this is the right choice.' Miliband has argued for nuclear power to be a part of tackling the climate crisis since 2009. As energy secretary in the last Labour government, he said he was brought up in a family that opposed it, but he now saw it as vital. 'I didn't expect to have to become the energy secretary again to make it happen,' Miliband said. 'We've been too slow, definitely. This is also about accepting the role of government because this is going to be majority state-owned and state invested. 'Hinkley was done under a different model. That is a way of lowering the cost of capital, getting a return for the taxpayer. So I think there have been real missed opportunities in the last 14 years.' Sizewell C was one of eight sites identified in 2009 by Miliband as a potential site for new nuclear. The project was not fully funded in the 14 years that followed under subsequent governments. The Treasury said that combined with the ambition to build SMRs, it would deliver more new nuclear to the grid than over the previous half century by the 2030s. Campaigners opposed to Sizewell C said they believed the development would end up as 'HS2 mark 2' with years of overspending and delay. Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said: 'Ministers have still not come clean about Sizewell C's cost and, given negotiations with private investors are incomplete, they have signed away all leverage and will be forced to offer generous deals that undermine value for money.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
SNP opposition to new nuclear power stations ‘makes no sense', says Miliband
Scotland will not get a 'golden age of nuclear' while the SNP holds firm in its opposition to new nuclear power stations, Ed Miliband has said. The Energy Secretary said Holyrood's position 'makes no sense', as Labour MP Gregor Poynton claimed the policy had cost workers and taxpayers north of the border 'billions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-skilled jobs'. SNP MP Kirsty Blackman described the UK Government's new £14.2 billion investment into Sizewell C in Suffolk as a 'splurge', when she pressed Mr Miliband on whether the Government will back the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. Mr Miliband said the Sizewell development along East Anglia's North Sea coastline will 'power the equivalent of around six million homes with clean homegrown energy for 60 years, and it will be a jobs and growth engine for Britain, supporting 10,000 jobs in the peak construction and creating 1,500 apprenticeships'. It is one of several nuclear projects which the Government has backed, which also include a prototype fusion plant at West Burton, Nottinghamshire, and a partnership between Rolls-Royce and Great British Energy – Nuclear to rollout small modular reactors. Mr Poynton, the MP for Livingston, told the Commons: 'Scotland was once a pioneer in nuclear energy and should be again, but due to the SNP Scottish Government's outdated, backward, quite frankly bizarre opposition to nuclear energy, turning away billions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-skilled jobs. 'So, does the Secretary of State agree with me this is yet another way the SNP Scottish Government has lost their way?' Mr Miliband replied that Mr Poynton was 'so right', and added: 'People in Scotland will be looking at these announcements and saying, 'well why isn't it us that are benefitting from this? Why are we not even in the race?'' The Scottish Government, led by SNP First Minister John Swinney, has a policy of opposing the building of new nuclear power stations. Lillian Jones, the Labour MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, criticised the position as an 'ideological block on nuclear power, blocking billions in investment, blocking thousands of well-paid, secure Scottish jobs, and blocking growth'. In his response, Mr Miliband said: 'We can announce a golden age of nuclear with our investments but not in Scotland, because of the position of the SNP Government. 'It makes no sense.' Aberdeen North MP Ms Blackman had earlier said: 'This £14 billion splurge on English nuclear power plants comes on top of £22 billion for English carbon capture and storage, while there's nothing for Scotland's Acorn project. 'With Grangemouth (oil refinery) allowed to close, with a fiscal regime that is ruining north-east energy jobs, this latest announcement shows that Scotland isn't just an afterthought, it isn't a thought at all. 'If nearly £40 billion can be found for English energy projects, why is it that money is never found for Scotland's carbon capture project?' Mr Miliband replied: 'Well look, I think maybe there is an SNP change in position coming. If she wants to have a conversation about Scottish nuclear power stations, then absolutely. 'We're in favour of the Acorn project and we'll be saying more about this in the coming weeks. 'But let me just say to her – on nuclear power, they've really got to think again. 'They are absolutely sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to this. This is about jobs, it's about investment, it's about clean energy, they should really rethink.' In an earlier statement, Mr Miliband said: 'The Government is taking decisive steps today to usher in a new golden age of nuclear for Britain.' He added: 'For too long, our country has not made the crucial energy – or indeed other infrastructure investments – we need. A short-sighted failure to invest for which the British people have paid the price in lower living standards, insecurity and declining public services. 'This week's announcements symbolise a decisive change in approach, to invest in the future – the right choice for energy security, the right choice for jobs, the right choice for climate and our children and grandchildren, the right choice for Britain, investment, not decline. 'This Government has made its choice.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ali Velshi: Have Americans grown numb? Trump's new travel ban met with muted reaction
This is an adapted excerpt from the June 8 episode of 'Velshi.' On Monday, the Trump administration's travel ban on nationals from 12 countries — almost all in Africa and Asia — went into effect. Last week, Donald Trump announced full bans would be issued on Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. He also announced partial restrictions on nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The White House's official argument is that the countries on this list, as determined by the secretary of state, do not adequately provide information to the U.S. for screening and vetting visa applicants. In a prerecorded video address discussing the order, Trump cited the firebombing attack in Boulder, Colorado, at an event honoring hostages taken by Hamas in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack. An Egyptian national has been charged in the firebombing, but Egypt is not included on the list of countries under the new restrictions. Mark Hetfield, president of a refugee resettlement agency, told The Washington Post there was a commonality between the countries included in the order. 'They're travel bans from countries that obviously don't respect human rights and don't respect the rule of law and have foreign relations issues with the United States,' Hetfield said. 'But those are exactly the kinds of countries that produce the refugees and, in particular, produce refugees that the United States would have an interest in resettling.' You may recall that in Trump's first term, he restricted travel from a group of mostly majority-Muslim countries: Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. That 2017 ban typified Trump's first term. It was met with outrage and immediate protest, with activists, immigration lawyers and citizens alike camping out in airports to decry the order. It also typified Trump's first term in its sloppiness. The order was immediately rejected by a court, rewritten, rejected again, and rewritten a third time. When it reached the Supreme Court in 2018, the Court ruled 5 to 4 that the president did have authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict the entry of people from countries that do not share adequate vetting information or could otherwise pose a national security risk. With this new ban, the Trump administration appears to have learned from that first-term experience and adapted its approach. The new order references the very same clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which reads: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may … suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.' Back in 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts said this language 'exudes deference to the President in every clause.' Perhaps Trump's first travel ban faded from public consciousness, but it was the law of the land until it was repealed by his successor, Joe Biden, in 2021. And the legal world's perception is that this latest ban is built to survive a legal battle as well. Trump's second term has been replete with lessons he learned from the first: He spent four years out of office, stewing on plans to wield the power he lost in 2020, and he came back into office armed with a 900-page playbook to bend the government to his whims and many executive orders already written, ready for him to sign. In the public's reaction to Trump's second ban, we see another difference: It wasn't met with the same outcry as his first. Although Americans are protesting the president's policies at Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities across the country, no spontaneous protests against the travel bans have broken out in airports like last time (at least not so far). It's apparent even in the media: Trump made the announcement Wednesday night, and by Thursday afternoon, he and Musk were in their spat, which took up all the oxygen in the news cycle. As Adam Serwer argued in a recent piece for The Atlantic, this story is evidence that Americans have grown numb. 'The number of disastrous things the administration is doing makes prioritizing difficult for its opponents,' Serwer wrote. 'But there is also the reality that Trumpism is a kind of authoritarian autoimmune disease, one that has been ravaging the American body politic for so long that there are fewer small-d democratic antibodies left to fight it off.' This article was originally published on