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
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Brazil's top court forms majority to hold social media platforms accountable for users' posts
BRASILIA, June 11 (Reuters) - Brazil's Supreme Court formed a majority on Wednesday to hold social media companies accountable for the content published by users on their platforms in the country.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes
A Wisconsin watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk claiming that he unlawfully bribed voters with million dollar checks and $100 giveaways in the state's latest Supreme Court election. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — a non-partisan, nonprofit organization that investigates election transparency — along with two Wisconsin voters, filed the suit against Musk, his super PAC America PAC, and another Musk-owned entity called the United States of America Inc.. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Musk and his entities violated state laws that prohibit vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries. It also accuses Musk of conducting civil conspiracy and acting as a public nuisance. Musk and America PAC did not respond to a request for comment. 'In the context of an election for Wisconsin's highest court, election bribery—providing more than $1 to induce electors (that is, voters) to vote— undermines voters' faith in the validity of the electoral system and the independence of the judiciary,' the suit reads. The complaint alleges that Musk violated state laws giving away $100 to voters who signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges' and handing out million dollar checks to those who signed the petition. and The suit says that those who had won the checks had voted for candidate Brad Schimel. At a town hall in Green Bay, Musk gave away million dollar checks to two different people, both of which the suit claims voted for Schimel. In a video America PAC posted on X, one of the winners said he had voted for Schimel and encouraged others to do the same. 'Everyone needs to do what I just did, sign the petition, refer your friends, and go out to vote for Brad Schimel,' the winner, Nicholas Jacobs, said in the video. The suit mentions that Musk had said that the $1 million awards would be given 'in appreciation' for those 'taking the time to vote.' Despite Musk's America PAC spending over $12 million dollars on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford still won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin attorney general Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk for his involvement in the state Supreme Court election, but a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing. A Pennsylvania judge similarly declined a request to block Musk's million-dollar giveaways in the state. During the presidential election, Musk's America PAC had also given out million dollar checks to people registered to vote in swing states, which the Justice Department had warned could be illegal. Musk defended his giveaways during the presidential election despite the allegations of unlawfulness by saying that those who signed the petition weren't given the money as a prize and that chance 'was not involved here.' Those who signed the petition were instead America PAC spokespeople with the 'opportunity to earn' $1 million. 'Make no mistake: an eligible voter's opportunity to earn is not the same thing as a chance to win,' Musk said, according to Reuters. Jeff Mendel, the co-founder of Law Forward — the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — said in an interview with NBC News that this lawsuit has the advantage of additional time. 'The election is over. Some passions have cooled, and we are bringing this in a normal posture, asking the court to go through its normal procedure,' Mendel said. 'We are confident that we'll get a complete and fair adjudication.' The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's lawsuit also seeks to bar Musk from 'replicating any such unlawful conduct in relation to future Wisconsin elections.' 'Almost everyone who was watching closely or saw what was happening here in Wisconsin in that very tight period was pretty horrified, and would say things like, 'Well, this can't possibly be legal,' or 'he can't possibly get away with this,'' Mendel said. 'That's really the purpose of this lawsuit, is to make sure that a court does say — in accord with both the law and, I think people across the political spectrums intuition — that this is not legal conduct, this is not consistent with how our democracy works, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Trump attorneys argue for hush-money appeal to move to federal court
Attorneys for Donald Trump on Wednesday argued that the appeal of his felony conviction in New York should be moved to federal court because the case related to official acts as president, while the state said it was too late to make the was convicted last May of lying in relation to a hush-money payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, which he appealed. Then, in July, the US Supreme Court granted the president immunity for official acts. For Trump's legal team, the goal of moving to federal court is for the conviction to be overturned on immunity sides made their case during a one-hour hearing before a three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump's attorney, Jeffrey Wall, argued that the president's appeal belonged in federal court because the Manhattan District Attorney's Office chose to include evidence that they say relates to Trump's official acts as president, including testimony from former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks."Everything about this cries out for federal court," Mr Wall told the three-judge panel. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, meanwhile, argued Trump's legal team took too long to ask for the case to be moved, after his sentencing. "After sentencing, removal is no longer available," said Steven Wu of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. "Even if it were technically available, there are compelling reasons not to permit it."Mr Wu also disagreed with Trump's attorneys that some of the evidence presented in the hush-money trial related to his official acts. He gave an example of a postal worker who robbed someone while not at work, but then chose to confess his crimes in the postal office. The confession in the office, he argued, would not be related to the postal worker's official duties. Trump's crime, Mr Wu argued, "was completed before the White House evidence". During the hearing, the three judges pressed both sides, noting the case was "extraordinary" and "highly unusual". One judge told Mr Wall it would be "quite anomalous" for an appeal to be moved to federal another noted that the Supreme Court in their immunity ruling used "broad" language to describe which evidence is related to "official acts" as president. The panel is expected to issue a written opinion at a later date. Trump's attorneys argued last September to move his New York case to the federal courts, but that request was denied by US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein. The 2nd US Circuit court is now hearing the appeal of that decision. Trump was sentenced in the hush-money case ten days before taking office in January. He was given an unconditional discharge, meaning he received no fines, probation or jail time, but the conviction will stay on his record. Trump was indicted in several criminal state and federal cases before his latest run for office, but the New York case was the only one to go to trial before he won the presidency. Trump's defence lawyers in the New York case, including Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, have since been promoted to positions in the justice department.
