Supreme Court appears to favor parents' right to opt out of LGBTQ+ stories for their children
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded ready on Tuesday to give parents a constitutional right to opt out of public school lessons for their children that offend their religious beliefs.
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
28 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: Clearwater snubs Pride, backs faith month with anti-LGBTQ+ ties
After several years of commemorating LGBTQ+ Pride Month, Clearwater leaders skipped the recognition this year, instead designating June for the first time as "Faith and Family Month." Why it matters: While the celebration on its face seeks to strengthen families through religion, Faith and Family Month's website denies the existence of transgender people and defines marriage as between a man and a woman. It dismisses climate change and critical race theory — a concept that links racial discrimination to the nation's foundations and legal system — as "false doctrines." And it attributes that belief system to the American Pastor Project, a network of church leaders with a mission to "eradicate Wokeism from the American pulpit." What they're saying: The city "is making a statement that they don't want LGBTQ+ people to be acknowledged [or] respected," said Wendy Vernon, a Clearwater resident and the president and founder of LGBTQ+ advocacy group PFLAG Safety Harbor. "That's definitely very hurtful to the community when they're already being shunned away everywhere," Vernon told Axios. She also questioned why city leaders didn't issue a Pride Month proclamation in addition to Faith and Family Month, as was the case in Lakeland. Between the lines: Proclamations are largely symbolic and typically requested by community organizations or city staff. Clearwater's Diversity Leadership Council, made up of city employees, didn't request a Pride proclamation this year due to disruptive protests at a Pride event last year, city spokesperson Joelle Castelli told Axios. "It was very uncomfortable for the members of the committee as they were personally targeted," she said. Committee members instead invited their colleagues to participate in the St. Pete Pride parade this month and offered free tickets to a Clearwater Threshers game. Driving the news: Faith and Family Month was organized by Christian service nonprofit Somebody Cares Tampa Bay, co-founder Daniel Bernard told Axios. Bernard said he was inspired by a discussion with Clearwater Mayor Bruce Rector, who said he wanted to see a pro-family event in the city. At the request of Somebody Cares, Rector presented the proclamation at the May 15 City Council meeting. His support features prominently in promotional social media posts and on Faith and Family Month's website. "We look forward to … celebrating an entire month with family-friendly activities and talking about how faith can help families be stronger," he says in a promotional video. Reality check: Navigate to the website's "Statement of Faith" page, and a much broader belief system comes into focus. Zoom in:"We recognize God's created order, in making male and female, determined by divine imprint, genetically encoded at conception, and changeless," it says, echoing language used by the Trump and DeSantis administrations to deny rights to transgender people. It goes on to say that pastors have a role "to protect our nation from the deceptions of false teaching and anti-Christ agendas," including abortion, CRT and "climate alarmist theory." The statement is attributed to the American Pastor Project, an organization founded by Lucas Miles, an Indiana-based pastor, conservative activist and author of "Woke Jesus: The False Messiah Destroying Christianity." Rector said the purpose of the proclamation was to encourage people of all different faiths and belief systems to "celebrate the importance of faith and families." Had an organization approached the city with a Pride proclamation, he "probably" would have signed it, he said, adding that he presented one last year. He said he hadn't seen the statement of faith until an Axios reporter showed it to him. He also wasn't familiar with the American Pastor Project, Rector said. "We're not trying to come against anybody or do anything of that nature," Bernard said. "We are just promoting the truth as we understand it."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Washington's Supreme Court slashes public defender caseload limits
(Photo by) The state Supreme Court on Monday responded to a 'crisis' in Washington's public defense system by slashing caseloads for those providing counsel to poor defendants facing criminal prosecutions. Justices unanimously agreed to set the new statewide standards, which call for public defenders to handle a maximum of 47 felony cases or 120 misdemeanor cases in a year, depending on one's primary area of practice. The current thresholds are 150 felonies and 400 misdemeanors. The group that represents Washington counties says the new standards are unattainable with the level of funding now available and due to a shortage of lawyers. Under the court's interim order, the new caseload limits take effect Jan. 1, 2026 and should be achieved 'as soon as reasonably possible' and no later than 10 years, Chief Justice Debra Stephens wrote in the four-page order. 'The crisis in the provision of indigent criminal defense services throughout our state requires action now,' Stephens wrote for the majority. Monday's decision is a potential game-changer in the state's effort to shore up a beleaguered public defense system that struggles to provide timely, equitable and effective counsel. 'It's a bold move. I didn't expect justices to go this far,' said Larry Jefferson, director of the state's Office of Public Defense. Jefferson warned justices 18 months ago the system was on the 'verge of collapse' as cases piled up, trials backed up and over-stressed attorneys retired or resigned to work in higher-paying, less stressful jobs. He appealed to the justices for help. 'This is one of the first times that public defenders have been listened to,' Jefferson said. Some counties have had to release those accused of crimes due to the lack of available defense counsel. The ACLU of Washington sued Yakima County last year for failing to appoint attorneys for indigent people charged with crimes. Hiring more public defenders costs money. Cities and counties worry they also will need to amp up hiring of court staff and prosecutors to keep pace and that will be expensive. 'What they are describing here is impossible with our current budget constraints,' said Derek Young, executive director of the Washington State Association of Counties. 'There's not nearly enough workforce now. If we triple the demand for services, where will all these lawyers come from?' 'There is no timeline we can accommodate this absent the Legislature waking up' and providing greater financial support, he said. The new state budget provides $20 million for counties, he said, which is about 6% of their total public defense costs. Standards the state Supreme Court adopted in 2012 said a full-time public defense attorney or assigned counsel should have no more than 150 felony cases a year. In 2023, the American Bar Association, the National Center for State Courts and the RAND Justice Policy Program released the National Public Defense Workload Study. It concluded public defenders should handle far fewer cases. That year, Washington's high court asked the Washington State Bar Association to weigh in on whether the cap needed adjusting in light of the findings. The association responded in March 2024, recommending new maximums of 47 felony credits or 120 misdemeanor credits in a year, depending on the severity of the charges. The reduction would be phased in over three years. Under that approach, the cap for felony cases would be 120 in the first year, 90 in the second and 47 in the third. For misdemeanors, the limit would be 280 cases in the first year, dropping to 225 and then 120. As part of its proposal, the association assigned crimes credits based on seriousness and complexity of providing a legal defense. A motor vehicle theft was assigned one credit and a murder seven, for example. That means a lawyer could theoretically be assigned 47 vehicle theft or seven homicide cases in a year before hitting their limit. Such case weighting is 'permissible and encouraged' but not required, Stephens wrote for the court. If done, a local government should adopt and publish any policies and procedures underlying the use of such weighting, Stephens wrote. The Supreme Court started accepting public comment on the bar association's request to trim caseloads a year ago, while also holding public hearings and internal work sessions. In each hearing, prosecutors argued reducing caseloads would lead to filing of fewer cases to ensure no one's rights to counsel are violated. 'Without sufficient attorneys or without sufficient resources, it would lead to a de facto decriminalization and an increase in vigilantism,' Russell Brown, executive director of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said in September. He added that 'way too many' people have had their cases dismissed or not filed because of a lack of public defenders. Supporters of reducing caseloads said in the hearings that the change is needed to stabilize the system. They contend that large caseloads and low pay are driving people out of public defense and deterring new lawyers from entering this line of legal work. And they, too, pointed to the problem in some counties where those accused of crimes, but unable to afford a lawyer, can wait long periods of time before they receive counsel. 'Public defense is in a downward spiral. We can fix this,' said Jason Schwarz, director of the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense and chair of the Washington State Bar Association's Council on Public Defense in September. 'This will be expensive. Justice is not cheap.' The order issued Monday isn't the final word. New rules are needed to put the caseload figures in place. And the bar association made other recommendations on subjects like staffing and training that justices are still considering. But the justices wanted to put out caseload information because they knew local governments are putting together their budgets for next year, Stephens wrote in the order.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Chicago among cities with Monday rallies in protest of Calif. National Guard deployment
CHICAGO (WGN) — Immigrant, civil rights and labor groups in more than a dozen US cities on Monday, including Chicago, held rallies in protest of the new phase in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. President Donald Trump over the weekend federalized the California National Guard after protestors and law enforcement faced off in Los Angeles. The rising tension follows last week's immigration crackdown in Chicago, in which advocates accused Chicago police of assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, a claim the department denies. 'What we saw last week and over the weekend wasn't lawful enforcement it was a belligerent power grab,' Rep. Jesus 'Chuy' Garcia said at a Monday rally at Daley Plaza. 'This isn't about safety. This is about control. Fear is the tactic. Silence is the goal. This is not about immigration. This is about domination of all of our communities.' What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops California governor to sue Trump over National Guard deployments ICE arrests at Chicago immigration building spark protest; advocates speak out The event in Chicago coincided with planned rallies from coast to coast, including Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, Philadelphia and Boston. 'Their tactic to incite violence is clearly intentional and it creates a moment that Trump will certainly exploit to enact even more harm,' said Lawrence Benito, CEO of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Groups gathered Monday also spoke out against Trump's extensive new travel ban barring nationals of 12 countries from entering the U.S. The ban mostly affects countries in Africa and the Middle East. The president made the final call on signing the order following the June 1 antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colorado. 'We must be clear that this is undeniably rooted in anti-Muslim, anti-Black … racism,' said Nadiah Alyafai with the Arab American Action Network. In Washington, House Republicans are set to grill three blue state governors about their cooperation with ICE. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is set to testify Thursday along with the governors of New York and Minnesota. As first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times, a source tells WGN-TV that Pritzker has retained a Washington, D.C. law firm to help him prep, paying for the services out of his own pocket. He's also getting a hand from a former White House counsel to President Joe Biden. A Pritzker spokesman says the governor will show that the Illinois TRUST Act is fully compliant with federal law. The law, signed by Republican Bruce Rauner, enables people regardless of immigration status to report crime and call emergency services. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
