Supreme Court allows Maryland parents to opt children out of classes that use LGBT-inclusive books
A group of religious parents who did not want their children to be read to or be exposed to LGBT+ inclusive books in school, may opt their children out of class, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday.
In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative wing of the court, which is often sympathetic to religious rights, sided with a group of religious parents in Maryland in a dispute over whether they could remove their children from classes that used books with LGBT+ themes or inclusivity.
The court said it was 'the rights of parents' to bring their children up under a religious belief.
"We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children,' Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
For now, those parents may remove their children from the class containing books they disagree with while litigation in the case moves forward.
At the center of the dispute are several books that contain LGBT+ characters or storylines in an English language arts curriculum for elementary school-aged children in Montgomery County.
To books include Pride Puppy, which takes readers through the alphabet while sharing the story of a girl whose puppy gets loose while at a pride parade. Also, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, a story about a girl who worries she will spend less time with her favorite uncle after he marries his boyfriend.
A group of parents in Maryland, from various faith backgrounds, sued the county school board after it implemented the books in the classrooms in 2022 to be more inclusive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
42 minutes ago
- The Independent
Iran's judiciary says at least 71 were killed in Israel's attack on Tehran's notorious Evin prison
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Chief Justice Roberts: Don't blame judges for applying the law
In a public conversation with the chief judge of the Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Roberts did not discuss any of those decisions, which included a big win for President Donald Trump in his fights with judges who have blocked his policies. Instead, the chief justice was asked how he deals with criticism. More: Called out by Trump for how he leads the Supreme Court, John Roberts is fine keeping a low profile Roberts says he keeps in mind that each case has a winner and a loser - and the loser is not going to like the outcome. "You'd like it to be informed criticism, but it's usually not," he said. "They're naturally focusing on the bottom line: who won and who lost. You need to appreciate that that's just the nature of what you do." More: Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways Sometimes, however, the criticism comes not from the party that lost, but from other justices. In writing the conservative majority's opinion that judges went too far when they blocked Trump's changes to birthright citizenship from going into effect everywhere in the country, Justice Amy Coney Barrett had some strong words about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent. "We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself," Barret wrote. "We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary." More: Trump Republicans lash out at Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a DEI hire Jackson wrote that the majority's decision gives the president "the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate." "As a result, the Judiciary - the one institution that is solely responsible for ensuring our Republic endures as a Nation of laws - has put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy," she wrote. Justice Jackson Supreme Court appears to favor 'monied interests' over ordinary citizens Sharp divisions at the Supreme Court; sharp words as the year comes to an end Roberts acknowledged that there can be sharp divisions among his colleagues and sharp adjectives employed, particularly at the end of the term. But he said the justices all work hard to understand where they're colleagues are coming from "to see if there's some way to if not bring things together, make the resolution as helpful as possible." "It's important to know, and understand, what Justice So-And-So is thinking about, because that will help you understand a little bit more about yours," he said. "And that's an interesting dynamic that plays out over the course of several months." Roberts also acknowledged that the court waited until the last days of the term to decide some of the biggest cases, saying they will try to spread things out more. "Things were a little crunched," he said, "toward the end this year."
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Without birthright citizenship, these celebs might not be Americans
On June 27, the Supreme Court lifted temporary blocks preventing Trump's order from taking effect, but left it to lower courts to consider the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Whether Trump will ultimately be able to repeal the longstanding legal precedent that grants citizenship to all children born on American soil is unclear. Here are some well-known actors and politicians who would not have been American citizens when they were born if birthright had not existed. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, 54, is the son of Cuban immigrants who did not become naturalized U.S. citizens until 1975, years after their son was born. Rubio has previously said he does not agree with repealing birthright citizenship. Diane Guerrero Actress Diane Guerrero, who starred in the hit television show "Orange is the New Black," was born to undocumented immigrants from Columbia who were deported when she was 14, she told NPR in 2019. In an interview with the outlet, she said, "This is a country of immigrants. People forget - they like to forget that their ancestors came here with the same dream, with the same hopes, with the same fears. And it's unfair to say that because people are coming later that they don't deserve to be here." Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2024, was born in South Carolina to immigrants from the Punjab region of India, according to her autobiography. In 2015, she told The State news outlet that her parents were in the United States legally but did not become naturalized citizens until after her birth, and the non-partisan American Immigration Council considers her a U.S. citizen because of her place of birth. Bruce Lee Bruce Lee, the martial arts icon who starred in films such as "Enter the Dragon" and "Fists of Fury," was born in San Francisco while his parents were traveling with the Chinese Opera. The National Archives notes that under birthright citizenship he was considered a citizen - though he would not be under Trump's revision to the law. "Lee's parents filed for a Return Certificate on his behalf ... enabling him to return to the United States if he later wished to do so. Lee did return at the age of 18 and grew into the iconic martial artist and film star known across the world." Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship may have been designed explicitly against his November rival for the presidency, former Vice President Kamala Harris. David Bier, of the Libertarian Cato Institute, posted on X the day Trump signed the order: "As I predicted, Trump's birthright citizenship EO includes a Kamala Harris clause, specifically designed to deny the legitimacy of her US citizenship as the child of someone with a temporary status." Trump's order specifies that someone wouldn't be entitled to birthright if their mother was on a temporary visa - like the student visa Harris' mother was on at the time of her birth - and their father wasn't a citizen, as hers wasn't. Vivek Ramaswamy Vivek Ramaswamy, the tech billionaire and 2024 Republican presidential candidate, told NBC News in 2023 that his father never became a U.S. citizen and his mother only naturalized after he was born. Ramaswamy, who Trump endorsed in next year's Ohio gubernatorial race, has repeatedly called for an end to birthright citizenship. Contributing: Maureen Groppe, Eduardo Cuevas, Sara Chernikoff, Ramon Padilla and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY
