Parental Opt-Outs for Controversial Books
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
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
San Francisco and other cities, following a Supreme Court ruling, are arresting more homeless people for living on the streets
Homelessness is on the rise in the United States, and in some places, it is becoming more common for the police to arrest someone for sleeping or living in a public space. In June 2024, the Supreme Court issued a ruling, Grants Pass v. Johnson, that determined it is constitutional to issue citations to or arrest homeless people, even when there is no available shelter. The ruling reversed earlier federal appeals court rulings from 2019 and 2022 that determined cities cannot enforce anti-camping laws against homeless people if there are not enough shelter beds available for them. The Supreme Court's ruling also determined that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments does not protect homeless people from laws criminalizing resting in public places. As someone who has spent more than a decade researching homelessness and speaking with unhoused communities, I have seen firsthand how enforcement of such laws imposes unavoidable hardships on homeless people and makes it harder for them to find a stable home. A rise in punitive action against homelessness In 2024, there were an estimated 771,480 people in the U.S. who experienced homelessness on a single night, the highest number ever recorded. Since June 2024, almost 220 local measures have passed that restrict or ban acts like sleeping, sitting or panhandling in public in cities that include Phoenix; Gainesville, Florida, and Reno, Nevada. The rate of unsheltered homelessness, meaning homeless people who are sleeping in places that are not meant for humans to rest in, like parks or cars, is the highest in California. After the Supreme Court's decision, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order in July 2024 that directs state agencies and departments to adopt new policies that remove homeless encampments. Those are temporary outdoor living spaces used by homeless people, often on public or private property. Following this executive order, more than two dozen California cities and towns adopted or considered adopting sweeping bans on homeless encampments. Not every leader has embraced this approach of what some observers call criminalizing homelessness. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, for example, rejected criminalizing homelessness as 'backwards' in June 2024. Nevertheless, many cities are enforcing existing and new bans on homeless encampments more aggressively than before the Supreme Court decision – despite evidence that such enforcement is not effective in dealing with the problem of homelessness. The impacts of aggressive enforcement Research shows that arresting someone without a home for sitting, resting or sleeping in a public place does not reduce homelessness. Instead, encampment sweeps and camping bans typically displace people from one area to another, while discarding or destroying their personal belongings in the process, such as identification cards, medications and sleeping gear. This approach also wastes public resources by paying groups to throw away people's belongings instead of investing that money into actual housing solutions, like creating more affordable housing options. Homeless encampment sweeps by police or other government officials are also shown to make people living in camps sicker, leading to increases in hospitalizations and even deaths among those dependent on drugs or alcohol. A punitive shift in San Francisco San Francisco is an example of an American city with a relatively large homeless population that has taken a more aggressive approach to enforcing bans on homeless encampments over the past year. A few weeks after the Supreme Court decision, then-San Francisco Mayor London Breed promised to be 'very aggressive' in removing homeless encampments. She also said that 'building more housing' would not solve the homelessness crisis. City data shows that in the 12 months since the Supreme Court ruling, San Francisco police had arrested more than 1,000 homeless people for living in a public space – a scale of enforcement rarely seen in the city's past. In the year leading up to the ruling, 111 people were arrested for illegal lodging San Francisco identified approximately 8,300 homeless city residents in 2024. In June 2025, I conducted a survey of 150 homeless people in San Francisco. About 10% of those people who gave a reason for a recent arrest reported being jailed for lodging without permission. Another 6% said they were arrested for trespassing. In the same survey, which is part of an ongoing project, 54% of homeless San Francisco residents reported being forced to move from a public space at least once. Another 8% reported being cited for another reason related to trespassing. A less aggressive path in Portland Other western American cities with large homeless populations have taken slightly different approaches to removing homelessness encampments since June 2024. Portland, Oregon, for example, began enforcing a new daytime camping ban in July 2024. But Portland police have only made 11 arrests of homeless people for camping-related violations over the past year. Other homeless people in Portland have received police citations for other offenses, like trespassing. As part of my June 2025 study, I surveyed 150 homeless Portland residents. About 49% of respondents reported having been arrested at some point in their lives. Though no respondents were arrested for camping in a prohibited place, 68% of people I spoke with reported that police or other government officers forced them to leave a public space at some point over the past year. And 13% of those who gave a reason for being cited by police said it was for camping in a prohibited place. Another 11% of homeless people were cited for some other reason related to living without shelter. As part of the study, I also interviewed residents who had been arrested while living on the street. One Portland resident I interviewed – who asked not to be named to preserve their anonymity – told me they lost the chance to rent an apartment because they were arrested in 2023 on a preexisting, unrelated warrant after a police officer checked their ID – just days before they were supposed to pick up their keys. 'Many unhoused people have warrants simply for failing to appear after being cited for sitting or resting in public space,' they said. 'I was supposed to go get the keys and, bam, I got picked up. I was arrested and went to court. Just me being in jail for five, six or five days screwed it all. I didn't show up to get the keys, and then (the landlord) couldn't get ahold of me, and they had no idea what was going on.' The weeklong jail stay not only pushed this person back onto the street, but it also put them back onto a waiting list for housing – where they remain in 2025. Looking ahead The Supreme Court's 2024 ruling did not mandate that cities criminalize homelessness. But it effectively gave cities the green light to do so without fear of violating people's constitutional protections. The effects of this ruling will be further felt with President Donald Trump's July 24, 2025, executive order that ended federal support for approaches like Housing First, a policy that prioritizes providing homeless people with housing, before any other needed help. The order also calls for involuntarily committing homeless people with mental illness to mental health institutions. As more cities consider tougher encampment ordinances, I think it is worth considering if more punitive measures really address homelessness. Decades of evidence suggest they won't. Instead, arresting homeless people often deepens their poverty, increases displacement and diverts public funding away from the real solution – stable, affordable housing. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Stephen Przybylinski, Michigan State University Read more: Supreme Court to consider whether local governments can make it a crime to sleep outside if no inside space is available Many more Denver teens have experienced homelessness than official counts show Supreme Court rules cities can ban homeless people from sleeping outdoors – Sotomayor dissent summarizes opinion as 'stay awake or be arrested' Stephen Przybylinski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Will Supreme Court Overturn Same-Sex Marriage? Here's What To Know As SCOTUS Hasn't Acted Yet
The Supreme Court could consider whether to overturn its landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage this term after the court was asked to hear a case on the issue—but the court hasn't yet taken any action on the case, and it remains to be seen whether they'll take it up, which they're not required to do. Joseph Fons holds a LGBTQ Pride Flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, June 15, 2020. Getty Images A case was filed at the Supreme Court in July that expressly asks the court to overturn its precedent in Obergefell v. Hodges, a 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The case was brought by Kim Davis, a Christian former clerk who gained notoriety and briefly landed in jail in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples following the Obergefell ruling. Davis has asked the court to determine whether Obergefell should be overturned, as part of a lawsuit that protests the alleged discrimination against her for refusing to issue same-sex marriage certificates. The case has been filed at the Supreme Court, but that is not an indication that the case will actually be decided by the justices, as the court only takes up a small fraction of the total cases it's asked to hear. The court has scheduled the case to be considered at the justices' conference on September 29, meaning a decision on whether or not the court will hear the case won't come until October at the earliest. It's unclear. After ABC News reported Monday on Davis' petition, numerous posts online claimed the Supreme Court was set to decide the issue, including by prediction market Polymarket. But that's not accurate, as justices have so far given no indication either way on whether or not they'll hear the case. The court previously rejected Davis' last petition to the Supreme Court in 2020, which challenged her punishment for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. When Could The Supreme Court Decide The Same-Sex Marriage Case? Though Davis' case is set to be discussed at the court's conference in late September, it's unclear when a decision could come out about whether justices will hear the case. The court will often re-list particularly controversial cases so they're considered at multiple conferences, meaning the court could spend weeks to months deciding whether the case should be heard. If justices do decide to take up the case, oral arguments would take place likely at the end of 2025 or in early 2026, with a decision coming out before the court's term ends in late June or early July 2026. Some of the court's most conservative justices have suggested they're eager to review the court's precedent on same-sex marriage, but there's so far no clear indication that a majority of justices on the 6-3 conservative court would vote to overturn the landmark case. In a concurring opinion when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and its protections on abortion in 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested Obergefell and other landmark cases could be overturned next, noting the same-sex marriage case was based on the same legal theory as Roe. Though Justice Samuel Alito's opinion overturning made clear the court's ruling only applied to abortion and not to other cases, Thomas said the same-sex marriage case and others relying on the same legal arguments are 'erroneous' and the court has 'a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents.' When the Supreme Court rejected a previous petition Davis submitted to the court in 2020, Thomas and Alito also filed an opinion decrying the Obergefell ruling, saying it 'threaten[s] religious liberty.' Because of the decision, 'those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws,' Alito and Thomas wrote. What Happens If Same-Sex Marriage Is Overturned? If Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned, same-sex marriages will still have some federal protections. Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022, which requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages, as long as they were performed legally in a state where same-sex marriage was allowed. It also requires states to recognize marriages despite race or ethnicity, and repealed a previous law that denied federal spousal benefits to same-sex couples. Obergefell getting repealed would mean states would no longer be required to allow same-sex marriages to take place in the state, however, meaning same-sex couples may only be able to get married in certain states, even if their marriage could be legally recognized across the country. Key Background Democrats and LGBTQ advocates have been fearful of what will happen to protections for same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and allowed states to outlaw abortion. Public trust in the Supreme Court has plummeted as the conservative-leaning court has issued a number of decisions in recent years that align with right-wing priorities, including giving more legal cover to President Donald Trump, loosening gun restrictions and letting business owners deny services to LGBTQ customers. Davis' petition to the Supreme Court comes as the Trump administration has broadly taken aim at LGBTQ rights in recent months, including by passing orders that restrict transgender rights—including reinstating the transgender military ban—attacking diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and taking steps like ending support for LGBTQ callers to the national suicide prevention hotline. Further Reading Forbes Clarence Thomas: Court Should Reconsider Gay Marriage, Birth Control Decisions Next After Overturning Roe By Alison Durkee Forbes Thomas, Alito Urge Supreme Court To 'Fix' Decision Legalizing Marriage Equality By Alison Durkee Forbes Biden Signs Same-Sex Marriage Protections Into Law By Sara Dorn
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The unprecedented feud between the US and Brazil
Hit by record US tariffs and demands to over-rule the supreme court, Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is digging than Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
