Supreme Court appears to favor parents' right to opt out of LGBTQ+ stories for their children
At issue are new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks used for classroom reading for pre-kindergarten to 5th grade in Montgomery County, Md., a suburb of Washington where three justices reside.
In recent years, the court's six conservatives have invoked the 'free exercise of religion' to protect Catholic schools from illegal job-bias claims from teachers and to give parents an equal right to use state grants to send their children to religious schools.
During an argument on Tuesday, they strongly suggested they would extend religious liberty rights to parents with children in public schools.
'They are not asking to change what is taught in the classroom,' Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh told an attorney for the court.
'As a lifelong resident of the county, I'm mystified at how it came to this. They had promised parents they would be notified and allow to opt out' if they objected to the new storybooks, he said. 'But the next day, they changed the rule.'
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch also live in Montgomery County, and both have been reliable supporters of religious liberty claims.
Nearly every state, including Maryland and California, has a law that allows parents to opt out of sex education classes for their children.
When the new storybooks were introduced in the fall of 2022, parents were told their young children could be removed from those lessons. But when 'unsustainably high numbers' of children were absent, the school board revoked the opt-out rule.
They explained this state rule applied to older students and sex education, but not to reading lessons for elementary children.
In reaction, a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents filed a suit in federal court, seeking an order that would allow their children be removed from class during the reading lessons.
They said the books conflicted with the religious and moral views they taught their children.
A federal judge and the 4th Circuit Court refused to intervene. Those judges said the 'free exercise' of religion protects people from being forced to change their conduct or their beliefs, neither of which were at issue in the school case.
But the Supreme Court voted to hear the parents' appeal in the case of Mahmoud vs. Taylor.
Representing the parents, Eric Baxter, an attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stressed they 'were not objecting to books being on the shelf or in the library. No student has a right to tell the school which books to choose,' he said. 'Here, the school board is imposing indoctrination on these children.'
Alan Shoenfeld, an attorney for the school board, said its goal for the new storybooks was 'to foster mutual respect. The lesson is that they should treat their peers with respect.'
He cautioned the court against adding a broad new right for parents and students to object to ideas or messages that offend them.
The Becket attorneys in their legal brief described seven books they found objectionable.
One of them, 'Pride Puppy,' is a picture book directed at 3- and 4-year-olds. It 'describes a Pride parade and what a child might find there,' they said. 'The book invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of 'underwear,' 'leather,' 'lip ring,' [drag] king' and [drag] queen.''
Another — 'Love, Violet' — is about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance.
'Born Ready' tells the story of a biological girl named Penelope who identifies as a boy.
'Intersection Allies' is a picture book also intended for early elementary school classes.
'It invites children to ponder what it means to be 'transgender' or 'non-binary' and asks 'what pronouns fit you?'' they said. Teachers were told 'to instruct students that, at birth, doctors 'guess about our gender,' but '[w]e know ourselves best.''
They said teachers were instructed to 'disrupt the either/or thinking' of elementary students about biological sex.
After the case reached the Supreme Court, two of the seven books were dropped by the school board, including 'Pride Puppy.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Here's why advocates doubt the Supreme Court will revisit marriage equality
The first challenge to same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court enshrined the right a decade ago comes before a very different mix of justices, LGBTQ+ advocates said. The big picture: Legal experts believe the court is highly unlikely to hear the case because unwinding protections for same-sex marriage after so many years would be incredibly complicated. The request challenges the landmark decision in Obergefell v Hodges, which established that marriage equality is constitutionally protected under the 14th Amendment's due process clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Catch up quick: Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk, is asking the Supreme Court to appeal an order that requires her to pay $360,000 to a gay couple in damages and fees for refusing to issue them a marriage license in 2015. Davis has been unsuccessfully appealing the order for years, and lower courts have repeatedly rejected her arguments. In a news release announcing the petition, an attorney representing Davis called Obergefell an "egregious opinion" that violated his clients "religious liberty." What they're saying: Mary Bonauto, one of the attorneys who represented lead plaintiff Jim Obergefell, told Axios that Davis' case is "extremely narrow" and that she's "attempting to shoehorn an opportunity to relitigate" the landmark case. "There's good reason for the Supreme Court to deny review in this case rather than unsettle something so positive for couples, children, families and the larger society as marriage equality," she said. The intrigue: Shannon Minter, a spokesperson for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights told Axios that the Supreme Court "has shown an alarming willingness" to "reverse long-standing precedent" in recent years. He named the court's decision to reverse the right to abortion access enshrined in Roe v. Wade through the Dobbs decision, and gutting legislation that sought to equalize historic discrimination against people of color such as the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action policies. He also mentioned the court imposing new restrictions on the power of lower courts to unilaterally freeze nationwide policies through "universal" injunctions in a case related to President Trump's efforts to end constitutionally-protected birthright citizenship. Flashback: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said in 2022 that the high court should reconsider multiple previous opinions, including those that offer protections to same-sex relationships, marriage equality and access to contraceptives. Despite the unpredictability of the Supreme Court, here's why LGBTQ+ advocates aren't worried about marriage equality being reversed: What are the legal implications of trying to reverse marriage equality? Overruling Obergefell could potentially make someone's marital status apply in one state but not in another. Multiple experts said that would create a patchwork of problems for tax laws, insurance policies and legal custody over children. Robbie Kaplan's successful arguments to the Supreme Court in 2013 laid down the foundation for Obergefell. "It's hard to imagine a situation where the reliance interests are more consequential than in the case of nationwide marriage equality," Kaplan told Axios. "It's not just a recipe for administrative chaos," Kaplan continued. "It also would result in an almost indescribable amount of (needless) suffering and heartache." Do Americans support marriage equality? Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which federally defined marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." At the time, 68% of Americans said they did not support marriage equality, according to a poll Gallup conducted in 1996. Stunning stat: Ten years after Obergefell, attitudes about marriage equality have flipped, as 68% of Americans now support it, according to Gallup's most recent numbers. What other protections exist for same-sex marriages? The Respect For Marriage Act passed by Congress in 2022, codifying the right to same-sex and interracial marriages is seen as a safety net for LGBTQ+ protections. The legislation also repealed the Defense of Marriage Act. Yes, but: The Respect For Marriage Act doesn't prohibit individual states from limiting or banning same-sex marriage if Obergefell were struck down. What's next: SCOTUS will decide if it wants to take up the case this fall. Approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari are filed with the court each year, and the justices hear oral arguments in about 80 cases, according to the court's website. The bottom line:"None of us can predict what the court will do," Suzanne Goldberg, Director of the Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic at Columbia Law told Axios.
CBS News
3 hours ago
- CBS News
State Dept. human rights reports scale back criticism of El Salvador, but fault U.K., Germany
The State Department on Tuesday released a long-awaited series of reports on worldwide human rights practices that reveal scaled-back criticism of select countries including El Salvador and harsher assessments of traditional U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom and Germany. The release follows a period of revisions that administration officials said were meant to "streamline" the reports, which cover events in about 200 countries in 2024 and had been largely completed by the end of the Biden administration. A note included with the reports said they had been "adjusted" to be "aligned to the administration's executive orders." The 2024 reports omit references to LGBTQ discrimination issues and significantly pare back treatments of issues including gender-based violence and government corruption. They no longer include sections dedicated to systemic racial or ethnic discrimination or violence, or to child abuse or child sexual exploitation, among other deletions. Mandated by Congress, the reports have been produced annually by the State Department for decades and are used by U.S. policymakers, human rights workers, foreign governments and judicial bodies worldwide as a resource to inform potential arms sales and court proceedings, and they also function as a U.S.-led check on government corruption and abuses. Rights groups and former State Department officials decried the revisions as an "erasure" of the plight of marginalized communities and what they said was a politically motivated move that undermined the prior value of the reports. "I think the signals are quite loud and quite clear of who they value and who they don't," said Desirée Cormier Smith, former special representative for racial equity and justice, now with the Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice. In the case of El Salvador, which ended presidential term limits in early August and has an agreement with the Trump administration to accept and detain undocumented immigrants from the U.S., the report notes "There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses" and that the government had taken "credible steps to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses." The 2023 report made note of El Salvador's overcrowded prisons and reports of "arbitrary killings; enforced disappearance; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention," and more. This year's report for Hungary notes "no credible reports of significant human rights abuses" though last year's included extensive mention of "serious government corruption" and restrictions on media freedom. Meanwhile the 2024 report for the United Kingdom notes the "human rights situation worsened," citing "credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression; and crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism." A similar assessment was offered for Germany and France, countries administration officials including Vice President JD Vance have publicly accused of censorship and the suppression of free speech. Asked by a reporter how the Trump administration squares its stricter monitoring of free expression via social media accounts of U.S. visa applicants with its criticism of European countries restricting hate speech, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a press briefing Tuesday that "restrictive laws against dis-favored voices, often on political or religious grounds — no matter how disagreeable someone's speech may be — to criminalize it, or silencing it by force only serves as a catalyst for further hatred, suppression, and polarization." The 2024 report for Israel, the West Bank and Gaza does not include a death toll for Israelis or Palestinians since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, a figure that was included in 2023. The report acknowledged a Committee to Protect Journalists figure of 82 Palestinian journalists having been killed in the conflict last year, but also included a line saying that "[i]n some cases, the IDF claimed the journalists killed were embedded with Hamas terrorists." The report did acknowledge troubling human rights records in several countries with which it has struck agreements to deport third national nationals, such as Libya. It noted credible reports of "arbitrary or unlawful killings; disappearances; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest and detention" and other abuses. It also noted of Afghanistan that there was "widespread disregard for the rule of law and official impunity for those responsible for human rights abuses." The U.S. terminated temporary protected status for Afghans last month, leaving more than 12,000 vulnerable to deportation. Reports for Russia, China, North Korea and Iran noted this year, as they did in previous years, "significant" human rights issues and included criticism of inaction by their respective governments to identify or punish those who had committed abuses. "The 2024 human rights report has been restructured in a way that removes redundancies, increases report readability and is more responsive to the legislative mandates that underpin the report," a senior State Department official said in a briefing last week. "U.S. policy on promoting respect for human rights around the globe, or in any particular country, has not changed."James LaPorta contributed to this report.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC
Zohran Mamdani's 'Five Boroughs Against Trump' tour makes oodles of sense for him — but only at the expense of the rest of the city. Not just because the last thing New Yorkers need is a mayor seeking a war with the White House, since they'd inevitably be the cannon fodder. More: Centering the mayoral debate on countering President Donald Trump encourages everyone to ignore all the issues Mamdani doesn't want voters thinking about, like how to make the streets and subways safe, the public schools functional and the local economy growing. It also prevents any focus on his privilege and inexperience, his cop-hatred, his obsessive loathing of Israel and the unworkability of pretty much his entire 'positive' agenda. Truth is, it mainly appeals to the vanity of his Democratic Socialists and their cheerleaders: Already imagining that their guy's surprise victory (in a Democratic primary) puts America on the brink of a new socialist era, they now get to also dream of Mamdani somehow turning the tide against Bad Orange Man. Except that he can't 'stand up' to Trump (beyond boring bits like the legal efforts to claw back improperly canceled grants that Mayor Eric Adams already has under way). Indeed, no mere mayor of any city can. Check the US Constitution: You'll find no mention of a mayoral power to check the president, Congress or for that matter the Supreme Court. And in the real world, a Mayor Mamdani declaring war on Trump would entail setting City Hall on fire and expecting the White House to burn down. New York City has zero leverage over the federal government, except perhaps 1) Wall Street's money — which socialists can't direct except via their trust funds — and 2) whatever power the national media has left — when the media's already done its damnedest to stop Trump. The feds, meanwhile, can screw New York eight ways to Sunday, starting with cutting back on the hundreds of billions it sends our way. Nor can local government 'withhold' New Yorkers' taxes, as some whiz kids in the Legislature suggest. State Attorney General Tish James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and a few complacent judges have already waged their worst lawfare against Trump, while then-Mayor Bill de Blasio did what he could against the Trump businesses that remain here. 'Trump-proofing' the city — the new tough talk from progressives around the country — is an empty threat, too: Federal law almost always trumps state and local ordinances. Playing tough guy and talking big is sure to give Mamdani lots of outraged outtakes for his social media. But he is writing checks that the people of NYC will have to pay.
