Supreme Court takes up religious rights dispute over LGBTQ books in Maryland schools
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments Tuesday over the religious rights of parents in Maryland to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters.
The case is the latest dispute involving religion to come before the conservative-led court. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years.
The Montgomery County public schools, in suburban Washington, D.C., introduced the storybooks as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diverse population.
Parents sued after the school system stopped allowing them to pull their kids from lessons that included the books. The parents argue that public schools cannot force kids to participate in instruction that violates their faith, and they pointed to the opt-out provisions in sex education classes.
The schools said allowing children to opt out of the lessons had become disruptive. Lower courts backed the schools, prompting the parents' appeal to the Supreme Court.
Five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella and Peter Pan, the school system's lawyers wrote.
In ' Prince and Knight,' two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom, and each other. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle will not have as much time for her after he gets married. His partner is a man.
'Love, Violet' deals with a girl's anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl. 'Born Ready' is the story of a transgender boy's decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. 'Intersection Allies' describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid.
Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents' group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing and inappropriate for young schoolchildren.
The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing what the parents want is 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year.
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
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to Social Security data. Here's what personal information is at stake.
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Department of Government Efficiency access to Social Security Administration data that includes sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. The decision comes as the federal government sought a stay, or temporary suspension, after a federal judge blocked DOGE's access to that data in April. The nation's highest court granted an emergency application from the Trump administration to lift that injunction; the case is expected to proceed in lower courts. In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded the Social Security Administration may give DOGE access to agency records while the case plays out 'in order for those members to do their work.' Both the White House and the Social Security Administration called the Supreme Court decision a victory. In a statement, White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston said it will allow the Trump administration to 'carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and modernize government information systems.' Likewise, Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in a statement said the agency 'will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries.' Yet others expressed grave concern in reaction to the decision, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, advocacy groups and plaintiffs in the case against DOGE and the Social Security Administration. 'This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,' said the coalition of plaintiffs including American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Teachers; and the Alliance for Retired Americans, who are represented by Democracy Forward. 'This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data,' they said, while vowing to 'use every legal tool at our disposal' to prevent the misuse of public data as the case moves forward. Millions of Americans' sensitive data at stake The dispute focuses on how much access DOGE should have to Americans' personal data. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint in early March, stating the Social Security Administration had 'abandoned its commitment to maintaining the privacy' of the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans under DOGE's influence. The Social Security Administration collects and stores some of the 'most sensitive' personally identifiable information of millions of Americans, ranging from seniors to adults to children, the complaint notes. When applying for a Social Security number, the agency requires the disclosure of place and date of birth, citizenship, ethnicity, race, sex, phone number and mailing address. It also requires parents' names and Social Security numbers. But the agency is also privy to other personal data, including personal health information, the complaint notes. That includes: driver's license and identification information bank and credit cards birth and marriage certificates pension information home and work addresses school records immigration and naturalization records family court records employment and employer records psychological and psychiatric health records hospitalization records addiction treatment records records for HIV/AIDS tests The Social Security Administration also collects tax information, including total earnings, Social Security and Medicare wages and annual employee withholdings. DOGE has not only accessed the agency's sensitive and protected information; it has also publicly shared it, according to the complaint. The actions of the defendants, including the Social Security Administration, DOGE and leaders including former head Elon Musk, have deprived Americans of privacy protections guaranteed by federal law and made their personal information vulnerable, the complaint alleges. In her dissent, Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, notes that records show 'DOGE received far broader data access' than the Social Security Administration usually allows in fraud, waste and abuse investigations. Typically, those investigations start with high level, anonymized data, with more access to more detailed information only granted as necessary. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented in the 6-3 decision. 'The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now – before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful,' Justice Jackson wrote. While litigation is pending, the government has asked to temporarily suspend the lower court's temporary limitations on DOGE's access to Social Security data, she noted. 'But the government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent the court's intervention,' Justice Jackson wrote.
North Wales Chronicle
3 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
School loses Supreme Court bid over Christian staff member sacked for LGBT posts
Kristie Higgs, a Christian mother of two, was sacked from her role at Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, in 2019 for sharing Facebook posts criticising teaching about LGBT+ relationships in schools. In February, she won a Court of Appeal battle related to her dismissal, with three senior judges finding that the decision to sack her for gross misconduct was 'unlawfully discriminatory' and 'unquestionably a disproportionate response'. The school sought to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court in March, but three justices refused to give the school the green light to challenge the decision in the UK's highest court. In a decision on Thursday, which was published on Monday, Lord Reed, Lord Hamblen, and Lady Simler said that the school had asked for the go-ahead to appeal against the ruling on four grounds. But they said that the Supreme Court 'does not have jurisdiction' to hear three of the grounds, and the fourth 'does not raise an arguable question of law'. In response to the decision, Mrs Higgs said: 'I am relieved and grateful to the Supreme Court for this common-sense decision. 'Christians have the right to express their beliefs on social media and at other non-work-related settings without fear of being punished by their employer.' Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre – which supported Mrs Higgs' case, said: 'We welcome the Supreme Court's decision, which brings a decisive closure to this extraordinary case.' She continued: 'The Court of Appeal confirmed, loud and clear, that ideological censorship in the workplace, particularly against sincerely held Christian convictions, is illegal. 'This latest decision from the Supreme Court is further proof that our tireless work at the Christian Legal Centre, in defending so many Christian freedoms cases, has not been in vain.' Mrs Higgs, who worked as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager at the school, shared two posts on a private page under her maiden name in October 2018 to about 100 friends, which raised concerns about relationship education at her son's Church of England primary school. She either copied and pasted from another source or reposted the content, adding her own reference in one post to 'brainwashing our children'. BREAKING: The Supreme Court has today refused to hear the appeal of Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire of the landmark Kristie Higgs Court of Appeal ruling. In February 2025, in a seminal judgment for Christian freedom and free speech, the Court of Appeal had reversed… — Christian Concern (@CConcern) June 9, 2025 Pupils were to learn about the No Outsiders In Our School programme, a series of books that teach the Equality Act in primary schools. An employment tribunal found in 2020 that while Mrs Higgs' religion was a protected characteristic, her dismissal was lawful, but this decision was overturned by an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in 2023. But the EAT ruled the case should be sent back to an employment tribunal for a fresh decision, which Mrs Higgs' lawyers challenged in the Court of Appeal as 'unnecessary'. In a judgment, Lord Justice Underhill, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk, ruled in Mrs Higgs' favour in February, stating: 'The dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer, or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation, objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act.'
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Judge blocks administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders
A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders in grant funding requirements that LGBTQ+ organizations say are unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said Monday that the federal government cannot force recipients to halt programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion or acknowledge the existence of transgender people in order to receive grant funding. The order will remain in effect while the legal case continues, although government lawyers will likely appeal. The funding provisions 'reflect an effort to censor constitutionally protected speech and services promoting DEI and recognizing the existence of transgender individuals,' Tigar wrote. He went on to say that the executive branch must still be bound by the Constitution in shaping its agenda and that even in the context of federal subsidies, 'it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous.' The plaintiffs include health centers, LGBTQ+ services groups and the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Historical Society. All receive federal funding and say they cannot complete their missions by following the president's executive orders. The San Francisco AIDS Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, said in 2023 it received a five-year grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to expand and enhance sexual health services, including the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The $1.3 million project specifically targets communities disproportionately affected by sexual health disparities. But in April, the CDC informed the nonprofit that it must 'immediately terminate all programs, personnel, activities, or contracts' that promote DEI or gender ideology. President Donald Trump has signed a flurry of executive orders since taking office in January, including ones to roll back transgender protections and stop DEI programs. Lawyers for the government say that the president is permitted to 'align government funding and enforcement strategies' with his policies. Plaintiffs say that Congress — and not the president — has the power to condition how federal funds are used, and that the executive orders restrict free speech rights.
