Supreme Court backs parents seeking to opt their kids out of LGBTQ books in elementary schools
The court on a 6-3 vote backed the parents' claim that the Montgomery County Board of Education's decision not to allow an opt-out for their children violated their religious rights under the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects religious expression.
"The board'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," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that is often receptive to religious claims. The liberal justices dissented.
The dispute arose in 2022 when the school board in the diverse county just outside Washington revised its English language arts curriculum.
The board determined that it wanted more storybooks to feature LGBTQ elements to better reflect some of the families who live in the area.
Approved books include 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' which features a gay character who is getting married, and 'Born Ready,' about a transgender child who wants to identify as a boy.
The school board said that although the books are in classrooms and available for children to pick up, teachers are not required to use them in class.
Initially the school board indicated that parents would be able to opt their children out of exposure to the books, but it quickly changed course, suggesting that would be too difficult to implement.
Plaintiffs include Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, a Muslim couple who have a son in elementary school. Members of the Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox churches also sued, as did a parent group called Kids First that has members of various faiths.
They said they had a right to protect their children from being taught content that conflicts with their religious beliefs by expressing support for same-sex relationships and transgender rights.
The Trump administration backed the challengers.
A federal judge and the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the school board.
The Supreme Court has in the past backed religious rights in cases involving conflicting arguments made by LGBTQ rights advocates. In one recent ruling, the court in 2023 ruled in favor of a Christian web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
11 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court declines for now to block Mississippi social media age-check law
WASHINGTON, Aug 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Thursday to put on hold Mississippi law requiring that users of social media platforms verify their age and that minors have parental consent in a challenge by a trade group whose members include Meta's (META.O), opens new tab Facebook, Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab YouTube and Snapchat (SNAP.N), opens new tab. The justices denied a request by NetChoice to block the law while the Washington-based tech industry trade association's legal challenge to the law, which it argues violates the U.S. Constitution's protections against government abridgement of free speech, plays out in lower courts. Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a statement about the court's order said the Mississippi law was likely unconstitutional, but that NetChoice had not met the high bar to block the measure at this early stage of the case. NetChoice had turned to the Supreme Court after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals let the law take effect even though a judge found it likely runs afoul of the First Amendment. NetChoice sued in federal court in 2024 in a bid to invalidate the law, which was passed unanimously in the state legislature amid concern by lawmakers about the potential negative effects of social media use on the mental health of children. Its emergency request to the justices marked the first time the Supreme Court was asked to consider a social media age-verification law. The law requires that a social media platform obtain "express consent" from a parent or guardian of a minor before a child can open an account. It also states that regulated social media platforms must make "commercially reasonable" efforts to verify the age of users. Under the law, the state can pursue civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation as well as criminal penalties under Mississippi's deceptive trade practices law. U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden in Gulfport, Mississippi, last year blocked Mississippi from enforcing the restrictions on some NetChoice members. Ozerden issued a second order in June pausing the rules against those members, including Meta and its Instagram and Facebook platforms, Snapchat and YouTube. The 5th Circuit on July 17 issued a one-sentence ruling, opens new tab that paused the judge's order, without explaining its reasoning. Courts in seven states have preliminarily or permanently blocked similar measures, according to NetChoice. Some technology companies are separately battling lawsuits brought by U.S. states, school districts and individual users alleging that social platforms have fueled mental health problems. The companies have denied wrongdoing. NetChoice said the social media platforms of its members already have adopted extensive policies to moderate content for minors and provide parental controls. In its request to the Supreme Court, the state told the justices that age-verification and parental consent requirements "are common ways for states to protect minors."
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court allows enforcement of Mississippi social media age verification law
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to block enforcement of a Mississippi law aimed at regulating the use of social media by children, an issue of growing national concern. The justices rejected an emergency appeal from a tech industry group that is challenging laws passed in Mississippi and other states that require social media users to verify their ages. NetChoice, which brought the lawsuit, argues the Mississippi law threatens privacy rights and unconstitutionally restricts the free expression of users of all ages.
Rhyl Journal
25 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Council's bid to block hotel housing asylum seekers to be heard on Friday
Epping Forest District Council said on Tuesday that it had filed documents at the High Court requesting an interim injunction stopping migrants from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex. It follows a series of protests in recent weeks outside the hotel, after an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. PA news agency understands the injunction bid is due to be heard on Friday by Mr Justice Eyre at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, with the case involving the council and Somani Hotels Ltd. The council said in a statement on Tuesday that it had seen 'unprecedented levels of protest and disruption' in connection with asylum seeker accommodation. It continued that it had issued the injunction bid because of the 'clear risk of further escalating community tensions and urgency of the need for the present situation to be brought under control'. Councillors had voted unanimously last month to call on the Home Office to close the hotel, the council added. Chris Whitbread, leader of the council, said the situation 'cannot go on' but the Government 'is not listening'. He said: 'The use by the Home Office of the premises for asylum seekers poses a clear risk of further escalating community tensions already at a high, and the risk of irreparable harm to the local community. 'This will only increase with the start of the new school year. 'In our view, placing asylum seekers in the Bell Hotel is a clear breach of planning permission. It is not in use as a hotel, and it doesn't function as a hotel. 'The establishment of a centre to accommodate asylum seekers in this particular location, in close proximity to five schools, a residential care home, and the shops and amenities of the market town of Epping, is not appropriate in planning terms.' The protests outside the hotel came after a man who was staying at the hotel, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, was charged with sexual assault. Kebatu, who is accused of attempting to kiss a 14-year-old girl, denies the charges and will stand trial this month. A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, 32, has separately been charged with seven offences. At a hearing at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, he denied a count of sexual assault after being alleged to have kissed a man on the neck. He indicated guilty pleas to a further two counts of common assault and four of assault by beating, with all of the offences said to have taken place at the hotel between July 25 and August 12. He was remanded in custody until a trial at the same court next month. Six men charged in relation to disorder outside the hotel will also appear in court next week.
