Children can skip classes with LGBT books, Supreme Court rules

Telegraph

5 hours ago

Parents can take their children out of school if they are reading books with gay characters in them, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland sued to keep their elementary school children out of certain lessons when storybooks with LGBT+ characters were read, claiming it violated their constitutional rights.
At the same time, the Supreme Court also ruled to block judges from thwarting Donald Trump's move to ban birthright citizenship, the 14th amendment, which makes people born on US soil automatically American regardless of parentage.
The LGBT+ ruling overturned a lower court's refusal to force public schools in Montgomery County to allow some children to opt out of the classes if desired.
The lower court had rejected the argument made by a group of parents who sued the school district, claiming it violated the Constitution's First Amendment protections for the free exercise of religion.
The court's conservative justices were in the majority and its liberal justices dissented from the ruling.
The plaintiffs in the LGBT+ case - who are Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox - said in their lawsuit that the storybooks 'promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation - with no parental notification or opportunity to opt out.'
Montgomery County said it ended the opt-outs in 2023 when the mounting number of requests to excuse students from these classes became logistically unworkable and raised concerns of 'social stigma and isolation' among students who believe the books represent them and their families.
Opt-outs are still allowed by the district for sex education units of health classes.
Meanwhile, the birthright citizenship ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, prevents other judges in the court circuit from blocking Mr Trump's legislation.
On the first day of his second term, Mr Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under the directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants.
It did not put the birthright citizenship order into effect or address the legality of ending birthright citizenship.
Significantly, the ruling could apply to all attempts by federal judges to block any executive orders from Mr Trump, not just birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court case argued federal judges should not be able to issue nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions, in theory paving the way to allow widespread enforcement of Mr Trump's agenda with minimal legal pushback.
A 1898 US Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v Wong Kim Ark set precedent for guaranteeing that children born in the US to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship.
The Trump administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a 'permanent domicile and residence in the US.'
Following Friday's ruling, Mr Trump claimed a victory.
He wrote in a Truth Social post: 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!
'Even the birthright citizenship hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our immigration process.
'Congratulations to attorney general Pam Bondi, solicitor general John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.'
Mr Trump has previously argued that the 14th amendment was passed in the wake of the Civil War and was meant to protect 'babies of slaves' rather than children of illegal migrants.
'Birthright citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'suckers' that we are... It had to do with Civil War results, and the babies of slaves who our politicians felt, correctly, needed protection,' he said in a Truth Social post last month.