
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
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lawmakers get theatrical at annual ‘Will on the Hill' show
Several lawmakers took a break from debating legislation on Capitol Hill to instead recite William Shakespeare at Harman Hall on Tuesday evening. The Shakespeare Theatre Company (STC) hosted its annual 'Will on the Hill,' welcoming members of Congress, journalists and students to perform popular Shakespeare scenes to fund its youth arts education programs, which reach nearly 20,000 students and teachers across the region. The more than 20-year long tradition also seeks to promote bipartisanship, bringing together lawmakers and political strategists from across the aisle to bolster support for theatre and the arts. Rep. Dina Titus's (D-Nev.) performance of the last scene of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' was the hit of the night. Her interpretation of old-English Shakespeare, which included a Southern accent, made the crowd roar in laughter. Another notable performance was the standoff between the Capulets and Montagues, two enemy families, in the opening scene of 'Romeo and Juliet.' As Atlantic journalist Steve Clemons, Republican political strategist Grover Norquist, Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) and Fox News correspondent Rich Edson bit their thumbs at each other on stage, the producers noted that giving them foam swords was the safest amid a tense political climate. The crowd then commended Sen. Chris Coons's (D-Del.) impersonation of Brutus plotting the assassination of Julius Caesar in the Shakespeare play of the same name. With political tensions rattling the country, seeing lawmakers fumbling over their words and trying to remember their lines proved to be refreshing entertainment. The elected officials were accompanied on stage by Holly Twyford, a pillar of D.C. theatre, and Renea Brown, an award winning actor. The show also included a stage combat demonstration by STC students. An elementary school student brilliantly played King Oberon in 'A Midsummer Night's Dream,' and two high school students performed 'All's Well That Ends Well.' STC Executive Director Angela Lee Gieras praised the event as an opportunity for children to express themselves, highlighting the courage it takes to perform in front of an audience. This year's performance was presented by Michael Evans, former Democratic chief counsel and deputy staff director for the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, who is an avid Shakespeare enthusiast. Samantha Wyer Bello, STC's senior director of learning, returned to direct her sixth production of 'Will on the Hill.' The STC also honored the memory of the late Democratic Reps. Gerry Connolly (Va.) and Charles Rangel (N.Y.) for their dedication to public service and their year-after-year support of 'Will on the Hill.' Other notable cast members included Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI), D.C. Council chairman Phil Mendelson, DC councilmember Brooke Pinto, D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities executive director Aaron Myers, Washington Post columnist James Hohmann and Politico journalist Olivia Beavers. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


USA Today
44 minutes ago
- USA Today
Entire Fulbright board quits, blaming Trump administration interference
Entire Fulbright board quits, blaming Trump administration interference The State Department is also putting 1,200 Fulbright recipients through an "unauthorized review process" that could lead to even more rejections, the board members said in a statement. Show Caption Hide Caption US to start 'aggressively' revoking visas for Chinese students The U.S. will start 'aggressively' revoking visas for Chinese students according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. All members of the board that oversees the State Department's Fulbright Program, which facilitates international educational exchanges, have voted to resign over alleged political interference from President Donald Trump's administration, the board said on Wednesday. The Trump administration had unlawfully "usurped the authority" of the board by denying awards to a "substantial number" of people who had already been selected for the 2025-2026 academic year through a yearlong, merit-based process, the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board said in a statement posted on the website Substack. The department is also putting another 1,200 Fulbright recipients through an "unauthorized review process" that could lead to more rejections, according to the statement. The board members chose to resign 'rather than endorse unprecedented actions that we believe are impermissible under the law, compromise U.S. national interests and integrity, and undermine the mission and mandates Congress established for the Fulbright program nearly 80 years ago," they said. Read more: Not just Harvard: See where 1.2 million international students learn in the US The Fulbright program, which was established in 1946, sends U.S. graduate students, scholars, artists, teachers, and professionals abroad to study, conduct research or teach English in approximately 160 countries worldwide. The program awards approximately 8,000 competitive, merit-based grants each year in most academic disciplines and fields of study, according to its website. Read more: International college students bring billions to the US. Here's why that may change. The New York Times reported the board had approved the applications of around 200 American professors and researchers who were set to work at universities and research institutions in other countries this summer, and the State Department was meant to send acceptance letters to the applicants in April. Instead, board members learned the department's Office of Public Diplomacy had begun sending rejection letters to the scholars based on the topics of their research. "The bipartisan Fulbright Board was mandated by Congress to be a check on the executive and to ensure that students, researchers and educators are not subjected to the blatant political favoritism that this Administration is known for," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. "While I understand and respect the bipartisan Fulbright Board for resigning en masse rather than grant credibility to a politicized process, I'm painfully aware that today's move will change the quality of Fulbright programming and the independent research that has made our country a leader in so many fields," she added. Since taking office for his second term in January, Trump's administration has undertaken a major overhaul of the State Department, enacted massive funding cuts for academic research, and curbed visas for foreign students.


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Immigrants are doing what anyone would do for their families
President Donald Trump and his adviser Stephen Miller characterize immigrants as murderers, rapists and thieves. They are correct — about the first immigrants to these shores, who indeed murdered the native residents, raped enslaved women and stole land that had been occupied by others for centuries. Now descendants of some of these original pillagers have the audacity to terrorize the latest generation of immigrants who, along with prior generations from Europe, have built this country's infrastructure with their sweat and enriched our culture with their traditions, cuisine, art and music. Not to mention the billions of dollars they contribute to our economy. To Trump, Miller and the rest who demonize people who risk everything to illegally cross our borders, I would ask: If your tidy neighborhood was plunged into violence, if you could no longer feed your hungry children because of society's breakdown, and just over the border, Canadians were still living in peace and comfort, what would you do? I'll bet we'd find you sneaking over to Canada by any means possible. Karin Burger, Petaluma Fight for democracy Let's unite against the threat of authoritarianism and defend our democracy. We must learn from history and recognize the alarming parallels between President Donald Trump's actions and those of dictators like Hitler and Stalin. The Republican-led Congress must be held accountable for its inaction. The Supreme Court's decisions are undermining our democratic institutions, and it's crucial we speak out against this erosion of our rights. As Americans, we must stand together and demand our leaders protect our freedom, human rights and the rule of law. We must mobilize and march peacefully to show our determination to preserve our democracy. Scott Paul, Royal Oak, Mich. Military call-ups inconsistent The Los Angeles Police Department has about 8,800 police officers. The department has dealt with major protests, such as this week's, successfully over the years. Each Los Angeles police officer should be insulted because President Donald Trump apparently thinks they cannot do their jobs and ordered the California National Guard and U.S. Marines into Los Angeles. This is pure theater at an estimated cost of $134 million to American taxpayers. And why was the military not called upon when the U.S. Capitol was under siege on Jan. 6, 2021? We know the answer. Phillip Points, San Francisco Penalize union leader Regarding ''I do not feel safe': City College of S.F. instructor shaken by union leader's verbal attack' (San Francisco, June 5): The public rant by Service Employees International Union Local 1021 President Maria Salazar at a City College of San Francisco board meeting is disturbing, unprofessional, unacceptable and in my view, antisemitic. What's more appalling is that Board of Trustees President Anita Martinez allowed Salazar to continue her attack against a faculty member even after Trustee Aliyah Chisti cautioned Martinez that speakers needed to be 'mindful' of what they say. Salazar said, 'I can say whatever I want' because she knows she can act with impunity. This is the crux of the problem at City College. The board is intimidated because members rely on union endorsements to get reelected. The trustees' meek response in admitting they erred shows how cowed they are by the union. It should be noted that during Salazar's inflammatory outburst, at least one trustee was laughing. If trustees believe Salazar's action violated board policy, which requires speakers to be respectful and civil, what is the consequence? For anyone else, such overt discrimination and bias would be a career ender. The targeted faculty member, the college community and the public need to see Salazar face real consequences. Ghin Yu, San Francisco All students matter Regarding 'Not Lowell Caliber' (Letters to the Editor, June 10): The letter writer answered the wrong question. What matters is not whether lottery students admitted to Lowell High School could do as well as their better-prepared peers. What matters is whether the lottery kids did better than they would have at a different school. We need well-educated citizens to save this country from tyranny. To write off some teenagers as 'not belonging' is shortsighted and cruel. Cynthia Cudaback, Oakland