SCOTUS rules in favor of parents seeking to opt children out of reading LGBTQ books
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled in favor of parents seeking to opt their children out of public school instruction that conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs.
The case, brought by a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, sought a guaranteed exemption from the classroom reading of storybooks with LGBTQ themes, including same-sex marriage and exploration of gender identity.
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson cast the dissenting votes in the 6-3 decision.
MORE: Supreme Court leans toward parents in dispute over LGBTQ storybooks in school
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said in the decision that refusing to allow parents to opt-out their kids from instruction that "poses a very real threat of undermining their religious beliefs and practices" violates the First Amendment protections for religious exercise.
The Montgomery County Board of Education's "introduction of the 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion," Alito wrote.
The court found that the parents are also likely to succeed in their lawsuit over free-exercise claims, and have shown they are entitled to a preliminary injunction while their lawsuit proceeds.
In her dissent, Sotomayor accused the court of inventing a "constitutional right to avoid exposure to subtle themes contrary to the religious principles that parents wish to instill in their children."
In 2022, after introducing several LGBTQ-themed books into its language arts curriculum, the Montgomery County school board allowed parents to opt out if the content was deemed objectionable as a matter of faith. One year later, officials reversed course and said the opt-out program had become unwieldy and ran counter to values of inclusion.
The parents alleged that use of the books in an elementary school curriculum -- without an opportunity to be excused -- amounts to government-led indoctrination regarding sensitive matters of sexuality. The school board insisted the books merely expose kids to diverse viewpoints and ideas.
Pending the completion of the legal challenge, the school board "should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction," Alito wrote.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during oral arguments in April that it was poised to establish a right of parents to opt out for sensitive subjects, saying it should be common sense.
President Donald Trump called the ruling a "tremendous victory for parents" during a White House press briefing Friday.
MORE: Supreme Court upholds Texas' online age verification for porn sites
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, during the briefing, thanked the Supreme Court for the decision, saying that restoring parents' rights to decide their child's education "seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight."
"Now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct," Blanche said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
Authors blast 'harmful' SCOTUS ruling allowing parents to opt kids out of reading their LGBTQ+ books
Authors and illustrators of the controversial LGBTQ+ children's books at the center of Friday's Supreme Court ruling blasted the decision as "discriminatory and harmful" in a joint statement. The justices decided 6-3 in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can exclude their children from a Maryland public school system's lessons that contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel the material conflicts with their religious faith. The parents who brought the suit spanned a range of religious backgrounds, from Muslims to Christians of different denominations. The Maryland parents who sued said in their petition to the high court that the Montgomery County Public Schools board introduced books to their elementary school students that promoted "gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance." The parents said the school board initially allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons involving those books but then prevented opt-outs. They also said the presence of the books created "indirect pressure to forgo a religious practice," which created enough of a burden to violate their religious freedom rights. Authors and illustrators of the books mentioned in the court case responded in a scathing letter. "As the authors and illustrators of the books named in Mahmoud v. Taylor, we believe the Supreme Court's ruling today threatens students' access to diverse books and undermines teachers' efforts to create safe, inclusive classrooms. To treat children's books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful. This decision will inevitably lead to an increasingly hostile climate for LGBTQ+ students and families, and create a less welcoming environment for all students," they said. After arguing that such books not only make children feel more represented, but also teach children "how to share their classrooms and communities with people different from themselves," the group of authors and illustrators argued they are part of a far larger shift. "We know there are families and educators across the country who are committed to creating inclusive classrooms that meet the needs of the diverse groups of students in their school districts. We are with them in spirit as they work to ensure that all students are seen and supported," the group said. "We will continue to support LGBTQ+ families and children everywhere and advocate for the right of all students to read freely. We strongly disagree with the Court's decision." Education Department Secretary Linda McMahon celebrated the ruling as a win for "parental rights" and a loss for "bureaucrats." "Parents have the right to know what their children are learning at school and to exercise their First Amendment freedom of religion to opt out of divisive and ideological lessons that go against their families' values and beliefs," McMahon said. Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, the legal group that represented the parents' case, said, "This is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission. Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents—not government—have the final say in how their children are raised."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Lawlessness will flourish': SCOTUS Justice issues chilling warning after major ruling
MSNBC's Antonia Hylton reports on the Supreme Court's consequential ruling that restricts the ability of lower courts to block President Trump's executive orders nationwide — specifically his ban on birthright citizenship, which had been stopped by every federal judge who encountered it. University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman and former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori join to discuss. (Subscribe to Ari's YouTube now:
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
High court ruling on injunctions could imperil many court orders blocking the Trump administration
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Friday limiting federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions threatens to upend numerous lawsuits that have led to orders blocking Trump administration policies. Between the start of the new administration and mid-May, judges issued roughly 40 nationwide injunctions against the White House on topics including federal funding, elections rules and diversity and equity considerations. Attorneys involved in some of those cases are vowing to keep fighting, noting the high court left open other legal paths that could have broad nationwide effect. Here's a look at some of the decisions that could be impacted: Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's order denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The high court's decision Friday came in a lawsuit over that order, but the justices left unclear whether the restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Opponents went back to court within hours of the opinion, using a legal path the court left open to file class-action lawsuits that could have nationwide effect. On June 13, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S. An executive order the Republican president issued in March sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. California was one of the plaintiffs in that suit. The office of the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in an email it was assessing the effect of Friday's Supreme Court decision on all of the state's litigation. A federal judge in California in April blocked the administration from cutting off funding for legal representation for unaccompanied migrant children. The administration has appealed. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco said there was 'no practical way' to limit the scope of the injunction by party or by geography. 'Indeed, as discussed with the Government's declarants at the preliminary injunction hearing, there exists only one contract for the provision of the subject funding, and it applies to direct legal services nationwide,' Martinez-Olguin wrote. Plaintiffs' attorney Adina Appelbaum, program director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said she didn't think the Supreme Court's decision would significantly affect her case. But she blasted it, saying the high court had 'turned its back on its role to protect the people,' including immigrants. A federal judge in February largely blocked sweeping executive orders that sought to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts it considers equity-related. An appeals court later put the decision on hold. Attorneys for the group Democracy Forward represented plaintiffs in the case. The group's president and CEO, Skye Perryman, said she was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it another barrier to seeking relief in court. But she also said it was limited and could keep at least some decisions blocking the Trump administration in place. A federal judge in February stopped the administration from withholding federal funds from health care facilities that provide gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19. Explaining his reasoning for a nationwide injunction, U.S. District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson in Maryland said a 'piecemeal approach is not appropriate in this case.' 'Significant confusion would result from preventing agencies from conditioning funding on certain medical institutions, while allowing conditional funding to persist as to other medical institutions,' he wrote. An appeal in the case was on hold as the Supreme Court considered similar issues about minors and transgender health care. The high court last week upheld a Tennessee law banning key health care treatments for transgender youth. Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., was one of the attorneys who secured Hurson's ruling. He said the plaintiffs' lawyers were still evaluating the possible impact of the Supreme Court's decision, but he believed the high court recognized that 'systematic, universal relief is sometimes appropriate.' In May, a judge in Rhode Island blocked an executive order that sought to dismantle federal agencies supporting libraries, museums, minority businesses and parties in labor disputes. The administration has appealed. Rhode Island was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The state's attorney general, Peter F. Neronha, said in a statement Friday he would 'continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans, all Americans, are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.'
