Parental Opt-Outs for Controversial Books
Book battles come to the Supreme Court: Mahmoud v. Taylor is before the Court this week, dealing with the Montgomery County Board of Education, which took away both parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that celebrate transgenderism and pride parades, read to children as young as three and four. The plaintiffs are a coalition of religious parents from all different faith traditions, asking the Court to rule on "whether parents' rights to the free exercise of their faiths are burdened if public schools do not allow them to withdraw their children from classes on days" these themes are discussed, per a New York Times writeup. Oral arguments are happening now, and a decision is expected in June.
At issue are the books Pride Puppy, an alphabet book about a puppy that gets lost at a Pride parade (at which there are drag queens and leather); Love, Violet, about a girl who crushes on her female classmate; Uncle Bobby's Wedding, which is self-explanatory; Born Ready, about a transgender child; Prince & Knight, a "modern fairy tale" about two boys falling in love and getting married after working together to battle a dragon; Intersection Allies which asks kids which pronouns fit them; and What Are Your Words? which tells kids that pronouns can "change like the weather." (The school district has since removed two of the books from the curriculum, though they remain in school libraries.)
The lead plaintiffs are a Muslim couple—Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat—who have a son in elementary school in Montgomery County. Other plaintiffs are Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox.
It's not just that these books are stocked in school libraries: In 2022, the school district added them to the language arts curriculum for students in pre-K through fifth grade. "At first, the Montgomery school system gave parents notice when the storybooks were to be discussed, along with the opportunity to have their children excused from those sessions," reports the Times. "But the school system soon eliminated the advanced notice and opt-out policy, saying it was hard to administer, led to absenteeism and risked 'exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.'" Several justices, even the liberal ones, expressed surprise at the themes and images depicted.
"The Supreme Court will determine whether the school board policy burdens religious rights," reports NBC News. "The justices could then determine whether that burden violates the Constitution, or they could send the case back to lower courts to make that determination."
Some of these books, like Born Ready, are teaching kids things that…are decidedly false (even if you agree with the transgenderism stuff):
"Surprisingly to speakers of English and other Indo-European languages, gendering pronouns isn't actually all that common; most languages don't do it," posted Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle on X. "But the idea that this somehow means sex/gender isn't a 'big deal' in these cultures is Sapir-Whorfism run amok." Children might be walking away from these lessons thinking, for example, that Ghana is some promised land for gay rights, which is decidedly not the case.
Pride Puppy, meanwhile, has a section that asks pre-schoolers (the intended audience!) to search for images from a word list that includes "intersex flag," "drag queen," "underwear," and "leather." (That book has since been removed from the curriculum.)
"Despite faith differences, these parents believe the storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their children, and inconsistent with their religious beliefs," notes the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (which is representing the plaintiffs) in a press release about the case.
Listen to some audio from oral arguments.
"It's not just exposure to the idea, right?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked. "It's saying this is the right view of the world. This is how we think about things. This is how you should think about things. This is like 2 plus 2 is 4."
"If the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with, you have a choice. You don't have to send your kid to that school," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Several of the plaintiffs have withdrawn their children from the school system as a result of this, opting for private schools and homeschooling.)
It's not clear to me why Montgomery County schoolteachers and administrators would be so threatened by parents retaining their opt-out ability—unless it is, of course, about indoctrination into a particular set of ideas. Some teachers have claimed that the sheer number of opt-outs makes classroom management hard, to which my response would be: Interesting market signals you've got there! Maybe, just maybe, if the lessons are so broadly unpopular, they should be scrapped. (If I were put in this position—and I assume New York City will at some point spring this type of thing on me—homeschooling would be my move, personally.)
For an opposing (and admittedly more informed on constitutional law) view, Eugene Volokh and Yale Law's Justin Driver submitted an amicus brief supporting the school system. You can read it here.
Done with CECOT: Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been moved to a lower security facility in Santa Ana, El Salvador, according to Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D–Md.), who visited him last week and has publicly exerted pressure on the Trump administration to ensure Abrego Garcia's return to the U.S. is facilitated, in compliance with the Supreme Court's order. "The U.S. State Department said in an update to the federal district court in Maryland that Abrego Garcia was moved to the facility eight days before Van Hollen met with him in El Salvador last week," per a CBS News report. Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia's wife and kids have moved to a safe house, after the Department of Homeland Security posted a domestic violence protection order from 2021 that featured her address to X.
"I don't feel safe when the government posts my address, the house where my family lives, for everyone to see, especially when this case has gone viral and people have all sorts of opinions," Jennifer Vasquez Sura told The Washington Post. "So, this is definitely a bit terrifying. I'm scared for my kids."
"I just want my husband back, my best friend back, my kids' father back. I want our life back," she added.
Cornell University dropped a popular R&B singer from its annual campus concert over what the school's president said were antisemitic and anti-Israel sentiments she had espoused," reports The New York Times. "The singer, Kehlani, has been an outspoken opponent of Israel's war in Gaza, speaking out at concerts and on social media. In a 2024 music video for the song 'Next 2 U,' Kehlani danced in a jacket adorned with kaffiyehs as dancers waved Palestinian flags in the background. During the video's introduction, the phrase 'Long Live the Intifada' appeared against a dark background."
This cowardly capitulation seems likely to be related to the Trump administration's investigations of antisemitism on university campuses, as well as the freezing, earlier this month of $1 billion worth of federal funds meant for Cornell (endowment: $10.7 billion).
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump began to walk back some of his comments about imposing a 145 percent tariff on Chinese goods, reports Bloomberg, mentioning he'd be willing to "substantially" reduce his tariffs on China. "We're going to have a fair deal with China," Trump told reporters yesterday. After those comments, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News that "there will be no unilateral reduction in tariffs against China. The president has made it clear China needs to make a deal with United States of America, and we are optimistic that will happen." In other words, the administration itself doesn't seem to know which policy it's sticking with.
First-term approval of Trump's handling of immigration policy vs. second-term approval so far:
Crucial distinctions between the normal deportation process and deportations under the Alien Enemies Act from today's Just Asking Questions guest:
I think this is not aspirational, actually, and would be a sign we're further creeping toward authoritarianism:
How do Chinese propagandists capitalize on domestic turmoil? This and more are covered in the latest Just Asking Questions with Michael Beckley:
"Of course you know I think it's good for the administration to consider pro-natalist ideas," writes Ross Douthat on X, linking to a New York Times piece about new family policies being considered, "but right now nothing would be more pro-natalist than avoiding an unnecessary recession." (We'll ask Douthat about this and more when he comes on the show next week.)
The post Parental Opt-Outs for Controversial Books appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge says Columbia University activist facing deportation should be freed
Supporters of Mahmoud Khalil rally outside the federal courthouse in Newark on March 28, 2025. (Reena Rose Sibayan for New Jersey Monitor) A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a Columbia University activist detained for partaking in pro-Palestinian protests cannot be held by the federal government over allegations that his presence in the United States undermines the nation's foreign policy interests. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz issued the order Wednesday but gave federal prosecutors until Friday at 9:30 a.m. to ask the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to step in. It's unclear if the activist, Mahmoud Khalil, will be released Friday if the government does indeed appeal. 'This is the news we've been waiting over three months for. Mahmoud must be released immediately and safely returned home to New York to be with me and our newborn baby, Deen,' Noor Abdalla, Khalil's wife, said in a statement from the American Civil Liberties Union of New York. 'True justice would mean Mahmoud was never taken away from us in the first place, that no Palestinian father, from New York to Gaza, would have to endure the painful separation of prison walls like Mahmoud has.' If it stands, Farbiarz's ruling, which comes on the heels of a previous decision that said the government's push to deport Khalil was likely unconstitutional, could deal a blow to the Trump administration's efforts to deport dissidents. Khalil was arrested by immigration authorities in March and has been held in Louisiana since. He's fighting two cases to fend off his deportation — one in Louisiana and one in New Jersey, because he was being transferred through Elizabeth Detention Center when his attorneys first filed a petition for his release. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed Khalil supports terrorist group Hamas and called his presence in the country a national security risk. Rubio has cited a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to justify Khalil's deportation. Farbiarz noted in his Wednesday ruling that the government could argue that Khalil would have been detained anyway because he inaccurately filled out his lawful permanent resident application, which can be a basis for removal under very rare circumstances. But that argument won't work, he said. 'Lawful permanent residents are virtually never detained pending removal for the sort of alleged omission' Khalil is accused of, the judge wrote in the 14-page filing. Khalil, whose wife and newborn son are American citizens, has not been charged with any crime. He was among the first university students who were picked up by immigration authorities targeting pro-Palestine activists. Some students who were detained under similar circumstances have been released but still face deportation. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Southern Baptists endorse overturning same-sex marriage
Southern Baptist delegates overwhelmingly called to try to reinstitute a ban on same-sex marriage 10 years after the Supreme Court legalized the unions. While gathered at the 2025 national convention in Dallas on Tuesday, the delegates of the country's leading Protestant denomination voiced their goal of changing national policy on same-sex marriage. Southern Baptists have long been opposed to same-sex marriage, but the call this week for the Supreme Court to reverse its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling has strategists questioning if it was influenced by the 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade, which was the constitutionally protected right to an abortion. The convention attracted thousands of pastors and church members from congregations across the country. The vote took place on the first day of the meeting, which gave a glimpse into the denomination's view on a number of political and cultural issues, The New York Times reported. The vote comes just after Gallup released survey results about a widening gap between Republicans and Democrats about their support for same-sex marriage. According to the polling, 68% of U.S. adults support same-sex marriage. Democrats' support has risen to 88% in 2025, while Republican support has dropped to 41%, the lowest since 2017. Southern Baptists acknowledged that their support for making same-sex marriage illegal puts them in the minority, but they say the nonbinding resolution puts their views on the map. While the support for overturning Obergefell may not be a strong sentiment nationwide, the Southern Baptist enthusiasm could lead to political efforts to change the law, as seen in recent years with the support and eventual reversal of Roe. Several other resolutions and ideas were passed by delegates, including defunding Planned Parenthood, banning pornography and condemning sports betting. Southern Baptist Convention Resolution Committee Chair Dr. Andrew Walker acknowledged they have an uphill battle to finding broader support for the resolution, but he would 'love to see Obergefell overturned' and a marriage definition in the U.S. 'restored to the union of one man and one woman.' 'There is very little desire, even on the conservative side, I think, to go to bat for marriage in this particular culture. And I want to stress to the press, while we are making a policy and legal statement, I'm clear eyed about the difficulties and the headwinds in this resolution,' Walker said during a press conference. Walter said the resolutions passed by the delegates were statements that can and will inform the way policymakers view Southern Baptist sentiment and desires. The Times noted that Southern Baptist values are often viewed as a bellwether for evangelical conservatism. 'I understand that it is largely ingrained in the American psyche at this point,' Walker said of same-sex marriage. 'But the role of this resolution was to say Southern Baptists aren't going anywhere.'
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
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 nonpartisan, 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 in 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. 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 people, both of whom 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 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 on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk over 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 Mandell, 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,' Mandell 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,'' Mandell 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 spectrum's 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.' This article was originally published on
