Supreme Court appears inclined to rule for parents seeking opt-outs for LGBTQ-themed instruction
The Supreme Court appeared inclined Tuesday to side with a group of parents objecting to their school district including books with LGBTQ themes in its elementary school curriculum.
Across 2.5 hours of arguments, a majority of the justices sympathized with the Montgomery County, Md., parents' claims that the lack of an opt-out option substantially burdens their First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion.
'What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?' asked conservative Justice Samuel Alito.
Montgomery County, which serves more than 160,000 students in the Maryland suburbs of the nation's capital and is one of the country's most diverse school districts, began introducing LGBTQ-inclusive books in its elementary school language arts curriculum at the start of the 2022-2023 school year.
The books include titles like 'Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,' which is centered on the author's transgender son, and 'Love, Violet,' which tells the story of two young girls in a same-sex romance.
'The book has a clear message,' Alito said of one of the books, indicating he had read several of the titles.
'And a lot of people think it is a good message. And maybe it is a good message, but it is a message that a lot of people who hold onto traditional religious beliefs don't agree with,' he added.
Initially, the school board allowed parents to opt out their children, but the county rescinded the option beginning the following school year.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly questioned why the school district was refusing the option and walked through Montgomery County's history of being a 'beacon' of religious liberty.
'I guess I am a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county, how it came to this,' said Kavanaugh
As the county removed the opt-out option, an organization and three sets of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents sued, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which regularly brings religion cases before the high court.
'The First Amendment demands more,' Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, told the justices of the county's policy.
The parents argue the county's decision violates the Supreme Court's holding in a 1972 case, Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which it ruled Wisconsin couldn't require Amish children to attend public school beyond the 8th grade because parents have the constitutional right to guide the religious future and education of their children.
But lower courts declined to put the county's policy on hold as the case proceeded, saying the plaintiffs didn't show their religious exercise was substantially burdened. The parents appealed to the Supreme Court after a divided panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their bid.
Though a majority of the court's conservatives seemed ready to rule with the parents, the justices explored several different legal avenues for how to get there.
Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's appointees the court, repeatedly questioned whether they should consider whether the county's policy demonstrates hostility against certain practices that amounts to religious discrimination.
But meanwhile, the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line, peppering hypotheticals about a gay teacher who has a photo of their same-sex spouse on their desk or a teacher that calls a transgender student by their preferred pronouns.
'It'll be like opt-outs for everyone,' said Justice Elena Kagan.
Outside the courthouse, dozens of protesters gathered at side-by-side competing rallies.
The group supporting the county read some of the books used by the school district, carrying signs like 'Our Love is Louder.' The competing group included demonstrators that held signs displaying slogans like 'Let Kids be Kids' and 'Let Parents Parent.'
The case is the first of two this session in which the justices will delve into religion and schools. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the bid in Oklahoma to create the nation's first religious public charter school.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Explainer-Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
By Dietrich Knauth President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California after two days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying that the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday said he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind "its unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County" and return them to his command. WHAT LAWS DID TRUMP CITE TO JUSTIFY THE MOVE? Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' WHAT ARE NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ALLOWED TO DO UNDER THE LAW CITED IN TRUMP'S ORDER? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH? The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press. Experts have said that Trump's decision to have U.S. troops respond to protests is an ominous sign for how far the president is willing to go to repress political speech and activity that he disagrees with or that criticizes his administration's policies. IS TRUMP'S MOVE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEGAL CHALLENGES? Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations have cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to immigration protests calling it inflammatory and reckless, especially without the support of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has said Trump's actions would only escalate tensions. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Title 10 also says "orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States," but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. COULD CALIFORNIA SUE TO CHALLENGE TRUMP'S MOVE? California could file a lawsuit, arguing that deployment of National Guard troops was not justified by Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion' or threat to law enforcement. A lawsuit might take months to resolve, and the outcome would be uncertain. Because the protests may be over before a lawsuit is resolved, the decision to sue might be more of a political question than a legal one, experts said. WHAT OTHER LAWS COULD TRUMP INVOKE TO DIRECT THE NATIONAL GUARD OR OTHER U.S MILITARY TROOPS? Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Casting protests as an 'insurrection' that requires the deployment of troops against U.S. citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents aren't the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial. But, the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
On the Record: Federal funding cuts threaten 1/3 of WTVP budget
PEORIA, Ill. (WMBD) — Local PBS affiliate stations like WTVP are sounding the alarm for their future after the Trump administration formally requested Congress to claw back funding for the next two years. WTVP President and CEO Jenn Gordon joined 'On the Record' and said the cuts will have a devastating impact on her station, which has just recovered from a financial situation of its own. 'So we're looking at an impact of about a third of our annual funding being immediately cut, if this rescission package goes through. So a lot is at stake here. More than 1.3 million people have already contacted Congress to voice their support [for public media],' she said. Gordon emphasized that public media differs from commercial media in that it's a private-public partnership. 'We're nonprofit organizations that rely in part on federal support to offer commercial-free programming to everyone. It was set up originally to receive some taxpayer dollars to get the ball rolling, but then also all of our local stations, we do quite a bit of fundraising to supplement that,' said Gordon. That federal funding could disappear in less than two months. The Trump administration, on Tuesday, sent Congress a rescission package, formally requesting the return of $1.1 billion already allocated for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That starts a countdown of 45 days for Congress to respond. If passed, Gordon said local stations like WTVP stand to lose nearly a third of their annual funding. 'This isn't just about national programming,' Gordon warned. 'Smaller stations will feel the cut even more sharply. At WTVP, we'd have to immediately shift into emergency fundraising mode to try to close the gap. It could slow or stop local and educational programming, and delay production for new shows.' The rescission package comes on the heels of another blow to public media. President Trump issued an executive order on May 1 to shut down PBS and NPR, citing bias and irrelevance. Both organizations have filed lawsuits in response, arguing the order is a violation of the First Amendment. Gordon said the ripple effects from the loss of funding will be felt everywhere, from fewer children's programs to potential job impacts at the local level. 'Some of that federal funding goes to actually producing programs. So you're going to see a shortening of production timelines. And then additionally, at the local level, it's going to immediately need us to move into a grassroots fundraising mode to try and make up for that difference,' she said. So, how can you help? Gordon said to call or send a message to your lawmakers voicing your support for public media. You can also visit 'It takes five minutes and could make a real difference,' she said. On June 3, PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger echoed Gordon's sentiments in a statement. 'The proposed rescissions would have a devastating impact on PBS member stations and the essential role they play in communities, particularly smaller and rural stations that rely on federal funding for a larger portion of their budgets,' she said. 'Without PBS member stations, Americans will lose unique local programming and emergency services in times of crisis. There's nothing more American than PBS, and we are proud to highlight real issues, individuals, and places that would otherwise be overlooked by commercial media.' PBS was created in by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1969 to provide Americans with a non-commercial space for news, educational programming, and inspirational content. There are approximately 350 stations across the country. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
As DC welcomes the world for Pride, marchers spotlight rollbacks of LGBTQ rights in US
Even with a theme of reaching people around the world, US politics took center stage as Washington, DC, hosted World Pride 2025, an international festival celebrating the LGBTQ community. The celebrations throughout the weekend, which included a parade, free concerts featuring artists Cynthia Erivo and Doechii plus a march on Sunday, marked the 50th anniversary of Pride celebrations in the nation's capital. Organizers described the event as a moment to 'celebrate, educate, support, and inspire' the global LGBTQ community. 'World Pride is occurring at a crucial time, bringing together voices from around the world to support the LGBTQ+ community's ongoing fight for equality, visibility, and justice,' the event's website notes, describing this year's festival as a 'historic moment.' Attendees at Sunday's march, which traveled along the National Mall and ended steps from the US Capitol, said the stakes of protecting the LGBTQ community amid recent actions by the Trump administration hung over the celebrations. The Trump administration has broadly pressured companies to end diversity and inclusion programs, taken steps to ban transgender service members from serving in the military and restricted access to gender-affirming care for young people. Liz Bauer, a first-grade teacher in DC, said she's 'really worried' about the message the administration is sending to transgender children, including those who she has taught in her classroom. 'It's really important that we continue to push back, even in small ways, to find inclusive things that we can do for students, including just giving them voices and giving them space,' Bauer said, 'and protecting every time that someone tries to change their ability to exist because they're still going to exist.' Bauer said she hopes World Pride sends a message that 'even though, right now, decisions are being made that aren't supporting everyone and aren't inclusive of everyone, that we're still here.' 'We're not going anywhere. We're standing strong,' Bauer said. 'And even people who can't speak for themselves, we're going to speak for them.' The White House did not issue a proclamation recognizing Pride month this year, a tradition first established by former President Bill Clinton, who designated June as 'Gay and Lesbian Pride Month' in 1999. Jay Abbit, who traveled from Hollywood, Florida, told CNN on Sunday he's concerned about the broader implications of Trump not acknowledging Pride month. 'It's just a microaggression and a dog whistle to his supporters, and we need to push back against that,' Abbit said. 'It's not a big thing, but it is a microaggression, and we need to talk, have these conversations.' Former Vice President Kamala Harris, meanwhile, appeared in a video at Sunday's rally, telling attendees Pride is a time to 'celebrate the progress we have made and recommit to the work still ahead.' 'In this moment, as you gather with friends and allies from across the world, let us be clear, no one should be made to fight alone,' Harris said. 'We are all in this together.'
