Supreme Court appears inclined to rule for parents seeking opt-outs for LGBTQ-themed instruction
The Supreme Court appeared inclined Tuesday to side with a group of parents objecting to their school district including books with LGBTQ themes in its elementary school curriculum.
Across more than two hours of arguments, a majority of the justices sympathized with the Montgomery County, Md., parents' claims that the lack of an opt-out option substantially burdens their First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion.
'What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?' conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked.
Montgomery County, which serves more than 160,000 students in the Maryland suburbs of the nation's capital and is one of the country's most diverse school districts, began introducing LGBTQ-inclusive books in its elementary school language arts curriculum at the start of the 2022-23 school year.
The books include titles like 'Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,' which is centered on the author's transgender son, and 'Love, Violet,' which tells the story of two young girls in a same-sex romance.
'The book has a clear message,' Alito said of one of the books, indicating he had read several of the titles.
'And a lot of people think it is a good message. And maybe it is a good message, but it is a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with,' he added.
Initially, the school board allowed parents to opt out their children, but the county rescinded the option beginning the following school year.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly questioned why the school district was refusing the option and walked through Montgomery County's history of being a 'beacon' of religious liberty.
'I guess I am a bit mystified, as a lifelong resident of the county, how it came to this,' Kavanaugh said.
As the county removed the opt-out option, an organization and three sets of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents sued, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which regularly brings religion cases before the high court.
'The First Amendment demands more,' Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, told the justices of the county's policy.
The parents argue the county's decision violates the Supreme Court's holding in a 1972 case, Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which it ruled Wisconsin couldn't require Amish children to attend public school beyond the eighth grade, because parents have the constitutional right to guide the religious future and education of their children.
But lower courts declined to put the county's policy on hold as the case proceeded, saying the plaintiffs didn't show their religious exercise was substantially burdened. The parents appealed to the Supreme Court after a divided panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their bid.
Though a majority of the court's conservatives seemed ready to rule with the parents, the justices explored several different legal avenues for how to get there.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, two of President Trump's appointees to the court, repeatedly questioned if they should consider whether the county's policy demonstrates hostility against certain practices that amounts to religious discrimination.
Meanwhile, the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line, peppering hypotheticals about a gay teacher who has a photo of their same-sex spouse on their desk or a teacher who calls a transgender student by their preferred pronouns.
'It'll be like opt-outs for everyone,' Justice Elena Kagan said.
Outside the courthouse, dozens of protesters gathered at side-by-side competing rallies.
The group supporting the county read some of the books used by the school district, carrying signs with messages such as 'Our Love is Louder.' The competing group included demonstrators who held signs displaying slogans like 'Let Kids be Kids' and 'Let Parents Parent.'
The case is the first of two this session in which the justices will delve into religion and schools. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the bid in Oklahoma to create the nation's first religious public charter school.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a 'pivotal time' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper. In a lecture for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's new free course on privacy rights, Osgoode Hall Law professor François Tanguay-Renaud proposes a thought experiment that reveals the inadequacy of 'privacy' as an organizing principle. What if the police were recording people on the street, with drones following people and recording their movements as they went about their day, zooming in on their cellphones and recording their conversations? In such a scenario, where people are in plain view, privacy is an inadequate concept to limit what we all see intuitively as oppressive state conduct. At one time, this hypothetical might have been considered far-fetched. Today it is eerily similar to the Kingston police drone scenario. In Kingston, police are using a drone to take aerial images peering into cars and zooming in on cellphones. Those drivers do have reasonable expectations of privacy inside their cars, but what would limit this police conduct if they surveilled citizens on sidewalks or parks, where they were in plain view without those privacy expectations? A principled line must be drawn between things done in plain sight that police can view and constant surveillance using enhanced technology. It may not be possible to draw that line on the basis of the existence or not of 'reasonable expectations of privacy.' There are other values that could serve as guiding or informing principles for Section 8. There is nothing in the text of Section 8 that mandates the gatekeeper of the right be 'reasonable expectations of privacy' rather than another interest, like dignity, liberty, security, anonymity, public confidence in the administration of justice, and many more. Indeed, American jurisprudence has been moving away from the concept of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' as the sole guiding principle for their 4th Amendment. To meet the challenges of the surveillance era, it is well past time for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to update privacy laws. But as recent police conduct shows, it's time for our Section 8 jurisprudence to be revisited as well, to meet the emerging challenges of the surveillance state. National Post Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. Canadians who want to learn more about their privacy rights in Canada can sign up for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's free course at Opinion: In 2020 the world shut down, and Canadians lost their privacy rights Facial recognition tool used by RCMP deemed illegal mass surveillance of unwitting Canadians
The Hill
37 minutes ago
- The Hill
Simone Biles rails against ‘sore loser' conservative activist over trans athletes
Olympian gymnast Simone Biles on Friday night clashed with conservative activist Riley Gaines over a transgender athlete's participation on a Minnesota high school's softball team. Gaines railed against a post on social platform X from the Minnesota State High School League that celebrated Champlin Park High School's first softball state championship win. 'Comments off lol,' Gaines wrote, referencing MSHSL's X settings. 'To be expected when your star player is a boy.' The pitcher on Champlin Park's team identifies as transgender and pitched a shutout, delivering a 6-0 win over Bloomington Jefferson High School on Friday. 'You're truly sick, all of this campaigning because you lost a race,' Biles responded to Gaines, a former collegiate swimmer, calling her a 'bully' and a 'straight up sore loser.' Gaines, a student athlete turned political pundit, has become a vocal critic against the participation of transgender athletes in girls and women's sports. Her rise on the right came after tying for fifth place in the 2022 NCAA Championships with transgender swimmer and LGBTQ advocate Lia Thomas. 'You should be uplifting the trans community and perhaps finding a way to make sports inclusive OR creating a new avenue where trans feel safe in sport,' Biles continued in her thread on Friday. 'Maybe a transgender category IN ALL sports!! Earlier this year, Gaines joined President Trump at the White House when he signed an executive order barring the participation of trans athletes in sports that align with their gender identity. This order prompted an investigation into the Minnesota high school sports governing body and the state's federal funding, which the North Star State is fighting in court. The former University of Kentucky swimmer responded to the 11-time Olympic medalist's defense of the young athlete, calling her remarks 'disappointing.' 'It's not my job or the job of any woman to figure out how to include men in our spaces,' Gaines wrote on X. 'You can uplift men stealing championships in women's sports with YOUR platform.' 'Men don't belong in women's sports and I say that with my full chest,' she added. Last month, a conservative group on behalf of three softball players sued the North Star State over its 2015 transgender athlete policy, local outlets reported.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump hails court ruling allowing White House to restrict AP access
President Trump celebrated a federal appeals court's ruling that allows the White House, for now, to restrict The Associated Press (AP) from the Oval Office and other limited spaces when reporting on the commander-in-chief. 'Big WIN over AP today,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday. 'They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked, in a 2-1 decision on Friday, an early April order from a district court judge that allowed the AP to regain its access to key White House spaces. The ruling blocked an April 8 order by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden that found that the news wire's exclusion from the press pool, a small cadre of reporters reporting on the president's whereabouts, was unlawful. 'The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' Judge Neomi Rao said in the Friday opinion, joined by Judge Gregory Katsas. AP's spokesperson Patrick Maks said the organization is 'disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options.' The White House's decision to exclude the AP originated from the news wire not wanting to use Gulf of America in its industry stylebook. The three-judge panel did not halt the part of McFadden's April order that provides AP access to the East Room. Judge Cornelia Pillard said in her dissent that being able to be in the press pool never relied on the news outlet's viewpoint until this year. 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' Pillard wrote. Days after McFadden ruled in favor of AP in April, the White House removed a spot in the press pool normally occupied by wire services.
