Supreme Court sides with religious parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools
In a 6-3 decision that divided along ideological lines, the court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs likely burdens parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
They said the school must allow opt-outs while the legal challenge continues.
Their decision continues a recent trend of high court rulings backing claims of religious discrimination, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights.
In the past, the federal courts have shied away from getting entangled in school curriculum issues.
WASHINGTON – In a surprise decision, the Supreme Court on XXday sided against a group of parents who want to be able to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read.
The court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs does not burden parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
Their decision goes against a recent trend of the high court rulings backing claims of religious discrimination, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights.
But in the past, the federal courts have shied away from getting entangled in school curriculum issues.
The Maryland parents – who include Muslims, Roman Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox followers – said they're not trying to prevent other students from reading the books.
But free speech advocates argued that will be the practical effect.
And national organizations representing school administrators worried schools could face a 'bewildering variety' of religious rights claims.
In classrooms across the country, children are routinely taught ideas that conflict with their family's religious beliefs, lawyers for the Montgomery County Public Schools told the court during April's oral arguments.
What are the controversial books?
School officials said they introduced a handful of books with LGBTQ+ characters into the reading curriculum at the start of the 2022-2023 school year as part of an effort to better reflect the community.
The school system, in suburban Washington, is one of the nation's largest and most ethnically and religiously diverse.
The controversial books include one in which the handsome prince falls in love not with a princess, but with the knight who helps him defeat a dragon. In another, 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' Chloe's favorite uncle gets married to another man.
The book 'Intersection Allies' features nine kids from different backgrounds, including Alejandra, who uses a wheelchair while playing basketball; Adilah, who wears a hijab in ballet class; and Kate, who prefers a superhero cape to 'skirts and frills.'
More: What LGBTQ+ books are at the center of a new Supreme Court case?
After various teachers, administrators and parents raised concerns about the effectiveness and age-appropriateness of the books, the school system allowed students to be excused when they were read in class.
But officials said they had to stop that because the growing number of opt-out requests created other problems, such as high absenteeism and the difficulty of arranging alternate instruction. They also said students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families could face social stigma and isolation if classmates leave the room when the books are read.
Some parents said the books conflict with their faith
The parents who then sued said they shouldn't have to send their kids to private school or to homeschool to avoid instruction that goes against the tenets of their religions.
'Intentionally exposing our young, impressionable, elementary-aged son to activities and curriculum on sex, sexuality, and gender that undermine Islamic teaching on these subjects would be immoral and would conflict with our religious duty to raise our children in accordance with our faith,' parents Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat said in a court filing about why they didn't want their son to be part of his second grade class's reading of 'Prince & Knight.'
But a divided panel of appeals court judges said the parents hadn't shown that they or their children had been coerced to believe or act contrary to their religious views.
The parents asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
The Trump administration backed the parents, saying the schools had put 'a price on a public benefit of public education at the expense of foregoing your religious beliefs.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Engadget
28 minutes ago
- Engadget
The Supreme Court lets Mississippi's social media age-verification law go into effect
The Supreme Court has decided not to weigh in on one of the many state-level age-verification laws currently being reviewed across the country. Today, the top court chose not to intervene on legislation from Mississippi about checking the ages of social media users, denying an application to vacate stay from NetChoice. The Mississippi law requires all users to verify their ages in order to use social media sites. It also places responsibility on the social networks to prevent children from accessing "harmful materials" and it requires parental consent for minors to use any social media. NetChoice represents several tech companies — including social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube — and it sued to block the law on grounds that it violates the First Amendment. A district court ruled in favor of NetChoice, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its temporary block. Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied the application to vacate stay on the appeals court ruling, he also wrote that "NetChoice has, in my view, demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits—namely, that enforcement of the Mississippi law would likely violate its members' First Amendment rights under this Court's precedents." He denied the application because NetChoice "has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time." This decision means that, at least for now, Mississippi's law will be allowed to stand. "Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment," said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. "This is merely an unfortunate procedural delay." There are several other state laws being assessed at various points in the US legal system. Some are centered on adult content providers such as pornography sites , while others are more broadly targeting social media use. Arkansas and Florida have seen federal judges block their laws, while Texas and Nebraska are working toward adopting their own rules about social media for minors. Yahoo, the parent company of Engadget, is a member of NetChoice.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Supreme Court declines to block Mississippi social media age-restriction law, for now
The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to block Mississippi from enforcing a law that would block minors from using nine popular social media sites without their parents' consent—delivering a near-term blow to the tech industry group that had sought emergency intervention from the high court. Justices on the high court did not elaborate on their reasons for rejecting the emergency appeal, filed by industry group NetChoice—a common practice when the Supreme Court decides on an emergency appeal—and did not provide a vote count. NeChoice had asked the high court to put the law on hold while the case continued to play out in the lower courts on its merits. Only Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh gave any indication of his thinking in a three-paragraph concurring opinion, writing that, while he believes the law in question is "likely unconstitutional," and that NetChoice "demonstrated it would likely succeed on the merits" of the case, he agreed with his colleagues in ruling that the group failed to meet the high bar required for emergency relief. The case will continue to play out in the lower courts, and is expected to make its way back to the Supreme Court for full consideration at a later date. At issue is Mississippi's sweeping social media law, known as H.B. 1126. The law, passed by the state in 2024, blocks young people from accessing popular social media sites, including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Pinterest, and Reddit without express parental consent. It also requires social media sites to take additional steps to verify the ages of users before allowing them to create accounts, and to "develop and implement a strategy" to shield young people from exposure to harmful material. Sites who fail to comply can be fined up to $10,000 per violation, and, in certain cases, could face criminal penalties. NetChoice quickly sued to block the law, arguing that it violated free speech protections under the First Amendment. U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden in June issued a preliminary injunction siding with NetChoice and temporarily blocking Mississippi from implementing its law. While Judge Ozerden acknowledged the state may have a "compelling interest" in safeguarding minors online, he said Mississippi's law involved "substantially more speech than is necessary for the state to accomplish its goals," and ran afoul of the First Amendment. In July, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted unanimously and without explanation to freeze the lower court injunction, allowing the law to take force—and prompting the emergency request for Supreme Court intervention. In its emergency appeal to the high court, lawyers for NetChoice took aim at the lack of explanation from the lower court. "Neither NetChoice nor this Court can know why the Fifth Circuit believed this law satisfies the First Amendment's stringent demands or deviated from the seven other decisions enjoining similar laws," lawyers said in their appeal to the high court, arguing they would face "immediate, irreparable" injury should the law be allowed to go into effect. The Supreme Court's emergency decision comes as a handful of other states have moved to implement similar age-verification legislation— including Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, and Utah. NetChoice, for its part, has led similar lawsuits challenging social media legislation in other states such as Florida and Texas earlier this year.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Judge blocks Trump guidance that threatened DEI programs in schools
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher in a Thursday ruling permanently blocked two memos issued by the Trump administration that threatened schools with funding cuts for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. Earlier in the year, the Trump administration issued a 'Dear Colleague' letter for universities threatening to take funding if they don't end 'illegal' DEI efforts. Soon after, K-12 districts got a memo to certify they have no DEI practices in their schools. The American Federation of Teachers, Democracy Forward and others sued over both of the memos, arguing it did not go through the proper procedures and violates the rights of schools. 'Plaintiffs have shown that neither challenged agency action was promulgated in accordance with the procedural requirements of the APA, and that both actions run afoul of important constitutional rights,' wrote Gallagher, who was appointed by President Trump. The Hill has reached out to the Education Department for comment. 'Today's final judgment by a federal court affirms what we and the plaintiffs in this case have long known: the Trump-Vance administration's crusade against civil rights, equity, and inclusion is unlawful and threatens all Americans. This is an invaluable decision that will have a sweeping and positive impact on public schools, teachers, and students. Threatening teachers and sowing chaos in schools throughout America is part of the administration's war on education, and today the people won,' said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. In the Dear Colleague letter, the Trump administration argued universities were trying to circumvent the 2023 Supreme Court ruling regarding affirmative action, which the federal government says applied to more than admissions, but also scholarships and other programs. 'The Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation's educational institutions. The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent,' the letter said.
