‘Leather and bondage': Supreme Court spars over details of LGBT+ children's books at center of religious freedom dispute
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by a group of religious parents from Maryland who hope to obtain the right to remove their children from classes that read storybooks featuring LGBT+ characters.
In preparation for Tuesday's arguments, the nine justices read books such as Pride Puppy, which takes readers through the alphabet while sharing the story of a girl whose puppy gets loose while at a pride parade. Also, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, a story about a girl who worries she will spend less time with her favorite uncle after he marries his boyfriend.
The content of the books – whether they 'promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning, and focus excessively on romantic infatuation,' as plaintiffs allege – became a point of contention during arguments.
Those storybooks, and others, have led to a legal battle between a group of parents in Maryland, from various faith backgrounds, and the Montgomery County Board of Education. The dispute is about whether the school board must have an opt-out policy for children whose parents believe the themes of the book go against their religious beliefs.
'It has a clear moral message,' Justice Samuel Alito said of the book Uncle Bobby's Wedding.
'And it may be a good message. It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with,' Alito added.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor sparred with Alito over the claim, noting that the children's book was not questioning the morality of same-sex marriage nor contained any images of two men kissing.
'Haven't we made very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?' Sotomayor asked.
Alito responded that there could be 'a book club' with 'a debate about how Uncle Bobby's marriage should be understood.'
Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson both voiced concern over how a school may implement an opt-out policy. The reason the Montgomery school district got rid of that policy was that allowing children to opt out was becoming disruptive.
Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern about a potentially broad ruling, which made it difficult to draw the line between allowing school administrators to make decisions while giving parents the right to oversee their children's upbringing.
But the details of the books became a memorable part of the arguments on Tuesday.
Justice Neil Gorsuch honed in on details of the book Pride Puppy – referring to it as 'the one where they're supposed to look for the leather and bondage things like that.' Gorsuch asked if the book, which is read to pre-kindergarten children, featured a 'sex worker.'
A lawyer for the Montgomery County Public Schools disputed the claim. He told Gorsuch that one part of the book points to a woman in a leather jacket.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who lives in Montgomery County, said he was 'surprised' that these arguments had arisen, given that the county has a diverse population. The county school board introduced the storybooks as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity.
"I'm surprised this is the hill to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty," Kavanaugh said.
The case is the latest dispute involving religion to come before the court. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years.
A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Thai court to hear Thaksin hospitalisation case in July; could potentially re-sentence ex-PM
BANGKOK, June 13 (Reuters) - Thailand's Supreme Court will hold hearings in July over the legitimacy of the prolonged hospital stay of influential former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in lieu of prison, and it could potentially send him back to jail. Friday's hearing came a day after Thailand's medical council upheld its decision to punish three doctors who allowed the 75-year-old tycoon to avoid jail, with the court requesting the medical council's resolution to be submitted to its hearing. Although Thaksin does not hold a formal role in government, he remains highly influential and is seen as the power behind the ruling Pheu Thai party, which is led by his daughter, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra. The mounting challenges against the ex-premier, who is also currently on bail for a separate case of insulting the monarchy, have put more uncertainty around a government already besieged by a faltering economy and a border crisis with Cambodia. The controversial billionaire former premier was sent to jail after his dramatic homecoming from self-exile in 2023 to serve a sentence of eight years for abuse of power and conflicts of interest. The sentence was reduced to one year by the King. During his first night in prison, he was transferred to a police hospital after complaining of chest pains. Thaksin remained in the hospital's VIP ward for six months until he was released on parole. His prolonged stay has sparked public outrage and raised questions over his ailment. The court on Friday summoned 20 witnesses to appear at its hearings, including a former corrections department head and physicians who treated Thaksin, as well as his medical records. Thaksin will be able to call his own witnesses at the hearings. The panel of five judges set six sitting days next month to hear the case, with the first on July 4 and the last on July 30. The court said Thaksin was not required to appear at the proceedings. "The truth is he was sick and he has completely served his sentence," Thaksin's lawyer, Winyat Chartmontri, told reporters outside the courthouse. "The medical council never said Thaksin was not sick, the question was whether his conditions were critical or not," Winyat said when asked about the medical tribunal's decision.
The Independent
13 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump team sends removal notices to more than half a million migrants allowed into the country under Biden program
The Department of Homeland Security started handing out termination notices to thousands of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela this week after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a decision that allows the Trump administration to end a Biden-era humanitarian parole program. Notices reviewed by CNN warned the migrants that if they do not leave voluntarily, they could face enforcement measures including detention and removal, 'without an opportunity to make personal arrangements and return to your country in an orderly manner.' The humanitarian parole program, introduced by the Biden administration, granted eligible migrants permission to enter the United States on a two-year stay. Approximately 530,000 citizens from the four countries were allowed in under the program. The Trump administration has criticized the program, claiming that it allowed 'poorly vetted' migrants into the country. But the program does require applicants to pass background checks and secure a financial sponsor to ensure they would not become a public burden. Last month, the Supreme Court granted an emergency request by the administration to halt the program, paving the way for DHS to begin rescinding protections for those living in the US under the program's terms. In a statement released Wednesday, DHS confirmed it would be revoking the work authorizations of those enrolled in the program. 'The Biden Administration lied to America,' DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. 'They allowed more than half a million poorly vetted aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela and their immediate family members to enter the United States through these disastrous parole programs; granted them opportunities to compete for American jobs and undercut American workers; forced career civil servants to promote the programs even when fraud was identified; and then blamed Republicans in Congress for the chaos that ensued and the crime that followed.' The Biden administration had promoted the program as a strategy to relieve pressure on the southern border, offering a legal and controlled pathway for migration from nations frequently represented in asylum claims. With the program now dismantled, immigrant advocacy groups and legal experts are bracing for a wave of legal challenges and humanitarian concerns surrounding those now facing removal. It comes as tensions around immigration are at an all-time high. In Los Angeles, in the city and Trump responded by deploying the military. Elsewhere, other anti-ICE demonstrations ignited across the country, with more planned for Saturday.
The Guardian
19 hours ago
- The Guardian
It is politicians – not regulators – who must make sense of the supreme court's gender ruling
It's almost two months now since the UK supreme court ruling on what makes a woman in the eyes of the law, which was hailed as a turning point in the battle over transgender rights. Not long enough for wounds to heal, in other words, but long enough surely to hope for a bit more clarity about what this means for everyday life: which toilets trans people can use, what this means for your local women's running club or gym, how employers can handle sensitive situations at work without outing or humiliating trans staff in front of colleagues and customers. But instead, the waters are getting muddier with every passing week. On Wednesday, Kishwer Falkner, now in the final five months of her term as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) watchdog, was grilled by the women and equalities select committee about the detailed code of practice she is due to submit to ministers next month, translating the ruling into everyday life. Since years of turning this issue into a political football haven't helped anyone, in an ideal world MPs could now leave it all in the hands of a trusted neutral arbiter, and resist the urge to meddle. Unfortunately, by the end of the hearing it was clear meddling may be urgently required. Within hours of the original supreme court ruling in April that 'woman' means 'biological woman' for the purpose of the Equality Act, and to the surprise of some lawyers, Lady Falkner had effectively pronounced inclusiveness dead. The EHRC issued interim guidance saying that trans people should stop using the toilets, changing rooms or NHS wards of their preferred gender – though for trans men who look male enough to be potentially frightening to women in female spaces, that's not straightforward – and only play on the grassroots sports teams of their birth sex. But is that really what the court intended? The former supreme court judge Jonathan Sumption has already warned of the risks of overinterpreting the ruling, arguing that he took it to confirm that single-sex services are entitled to exclude trans people, but not obliged to if they don't want to. Falkner, however, is sticking to her guns. Suppose you wanted to start a women's walking group, the Labour MP Rachel Taylor asked her, but you actively wanted to include trans women. Is that allowed? No, was the eventual answer: of course you can let your trans friend join, but then you'd be a mixed not single-sex group, and would have to also accept any man asking to join or risk getting sued. What the biological women in this group actually want – where they'd draw their own boundaries, or what feels right to them – is irrelevant on this reading, a position that may yet end up being tested in the courts. How any of this might be enforced in real life, meanwhile, seems vague at best. Asked how this imaginary walking group should check that every new member was definitely biologically female, Falkner suggested they might make a judgment on sight, but that nobody was going to be walking around with badges on policing it. Similarly on toilets, EHRC chief executive John Kirkpatrick told the committee that employers would need to provide facilities securing women's privacy and dignity, but that what that meant would vary locally and could be worked out 'on the basis of trust and openness and honesty'. With a large dollop of goodwill and forbearance on all sides, you can see how that might wash – except on this issue, there's vanishingly little of either to be found. The most awkward question, meanwhile, is whether a battle-scarred veteran of the culture wars such as Falkner is now sufficiently trusted to write the peace settlement. Originally appointed by Liz Truss to shake up an organisation seen by the Tories as too close to Stonewall, Falkner survived both attempted mutiny inside her organisation and vicious personal abuse from outside, as she dragged it into line with what would later end up being the supreme court's settled position: that trans women are not, in law, quite the same as biological women. She wouldn't be human if she didn't feel vindicated, and she was visibly emotional when the gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield (who has been through something similar) reminded her about the placards reading 'the only good Terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist] is a dead Terf' or when protesters in 2022 dumped 60 bottles of urine on her office doorstep. But the legacy of those brutal years is that, fairly or unfairly, many trans people no longer trust the EHRC to defend their rights (as it's mandated to do for all protected groups). Falkner brushed off the committee's questions about that, saying she didn't see why people 'should become so fearful' when they haven't lost any rights (technically speaking, the court merely defined what the limits of those rights were). Yet where people do and don't feel welcome in society is determined by social norms as well as rights, and the former have swung from one extreme to the other in recent years; you don't have to disagree with the supreme court's ruling to see how that could be wildly disorienting. Though Falkner suggested it would be 'wise for space to be given to the regulator' to handle this – in other words, that parliament should back off – some Labour MPs are rapidly reaching the opposite view. A law that doesn't work in real-life scenarios is a law that doesn't work, full stop. On this evidence, parliament should prepare to roll up its sleeves. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
