
The 9 LGBTQ+ children's books targeted in high court ruling upending education policy
Picture books are not usually the stuff of Supreme Court rulings. But on Friday, a majority of justices ruled that parents have a right to opt their children out of lessons that offend their religious beliefs — bringing the colorful pages of books like 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' and 'Pride Puppy' into the staid public record of the nation's highest court.
The ruling resulted from a lawsuit brought by parents in Montgomery County, Md., who sued for the right to remove their children from lessons where LGBTQ+ storybooks would be read aloud in elementary school classes from kindergarten through 5th grade. The books were part of an effort in the district to represent LGBTQ+ families in the English language arts curriculum.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that schools must 'notify them in advance' when one of the disputed storybooks would be used in their child's class, so that they could have their children temporarily removed. The court's three liberals dissented.
As part of the the decisions, briefings and petitions in the case, the justices and lawyers for the parents described in detail the story lines of nine picture books that were part of Montgomery County's new curriculum. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor even reproduced one, 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in its entirety.
Here are the nine books that were the subject of the case:
Pride PuppyAuthor: Robin Stevenson Illustrator: Julie McLaughlin
'Pride Puppy,' a rhyming alphabet book for very young children, depicts a little girl who loses her dog during a joyful visit to a Pride parade. The story, which is available as a board book, invites readers to spot items starting with each of the letters of the alphabet, including apple, baseball and clouds — as well as items more specific to a Pride parade.
Lawyers representing the parents said in their brief that the 'invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of 'underwear,' 'leather,' 'lip ring,' '[drag] king' and '[drag] queen,' and 'Marsha P. Johnson,' a controversial LGBTQ activist and sex worker.'
The 'leather' in question refers to a mother's jacket, and the 'underwear' to a pair of green briefs worn over tights by an older child as part of a colorful outfit.
The Montgomery County Public Schools stopped teaching 'Pride Puppy' in the midst of the legal battle.
Love, VioletAuthor: Charlotte Sullivan WildIllustrator: Charlene Chua
The story describes a little girl named Violet with a crush on another girl in her class named Mira, who 'had a leaping laugh' and 'made Violet's heart skip.' But every time Mira tries to talk to her, Violet gets shy and quiet.
On Valentine's Day, Violet makes Mira a special valentine. As Violet gathers the courage to give it to her, the valentine ends up trampled in the snow. But Mira loves it anyway and also has a special gift for Violet — a locket with a violet inside. At the end of the book, the two girls go on an adventure together.
Lawyers for the parents describe 'Love, Violet' as a book about 'two young girls and their same-sex playground romance.' They wrote in that 'teachers are encouraged to have a 'think aloud' moment to ask students how it feels when they don't just 'like' but 'like like' someone.'
Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named PenelopeAuthor: Jodie Patterson Illustrator: Charnelle Pinkney Barlow
In 'Born Ready,' 5-year-old Penelope was born a girl but is certain they are a boy.
'I love you, Mama, but I don't want to be you. I want to be Papa. I don't want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I'll look like you. Please help me, Mama. Help me be a boy,' Penelope tells their mom. 'We will make a plan to tell everyone we know,' Penelope's mom tells them, and they throw a big party to celebrate.
In her dissent, Sotomayor notes, 'When Penelope's brother expresses skepticism, his mother says, 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.' '
In their opening brief, lawyers for the families said that 'teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, people 'guess about our gender,' but 'we know ourselves best.' '
Prince and Knight Author: Daniel Haack Illustrator: Stevie Lewis
'Prince and Knight' is a story about a prince whose parents want him to find a bride, but instead he falls in love with a knight. Together, they fight off a dragon. When the prince falls from a great height, his knight rescues him on horseback.
When the king and queen find out of their love, they 'were overwhelmed with joy. 'We have finally found someone who is perfect for our boy!' ' A great wedding is held, and 'the prince and his shining knight would live happily ever after.'
'The book Prince & Knight clearly conveys the message that same-sex marriage should be accepted by all as a cause for celebration,' said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, a concerning message for Americans whose religion tells them that same-sex marriage is wrong.
'For young children, to whom this and the other storybooks are targeted, such celebration is liable to be processed as having moral connotations,' Alito wrote. 'If this same-sex marriage makes everyone happy and leads to joyous celebration by all, doesn't that mean it is in every respect a good thing?'
Uncle Bobby's WeddingAuthor: Sarah S. Brannen Illustrator: Lucia Soto
In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a little girl named Chloe learns that her beloved uncle is engaged to his partner, a man named Jamie. At first, she worries that the marriage will change her close bond with her uncle. But she soon embraces the celebration and the joy of getting another uncle through the union.
In the majority opinion, Alito wrote that the book sends children the message that 'two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex, so long as they 'love each other.' ' That viewpoint is 'directly contrary to the religious principles that the parents in this case wish to instill in their children.' Parents ability to 'present a different moral message' to their children, he said, 'is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.'
In her dissent, Sotomayor includes the entire book, writing that, 'Because the majority selectively excerpts the book in order to rewrite its story.'
The majority's analysis, she writes, 'reveals its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist. They are part of virtually every community and workplace of any appreciable size. Eliminating books depicting LGBTQ individuals as happily accepted by their families will not eliminate student exposure to that concept.'
Jacob's Room to ChooseAuthor: Sarah Hoffman and Ian HoffmanIllustrator: Chris Case
'Jacob's Room to Choose' is a follow-up to 'Jacob's New Dress,' a picture book listed as one of the American Library Assn.'s top 100 banned books of the last decade.
Jacob wears a dress, and when he tries to use the boy's bathroom, two little boys 'stared at Jacob standing in the doorway. Jacob knew what that look meant. He turned and ran out.' The same thing happens to his friend Sophie, who presents as a boy and is chased out of the girl's bathroom.
Their teacher encourages the whole class to rethink what gender really means. The class decides everyone should be able to use the bathroom that makes them feel comfortable, and makes new, inclusive signs to hang on the bathroom doors.
'After relabeling the bathroom doors to welcome multiple genders, the children parade with placards that proclaim 'Bathrooms Are For Every Bunny' and '[choose] the bathroom that is comfy,' ' lawyers for the parents wrote.
IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All Author: Chelsea Johnson, LaToya Council and Carolyn Choi Illustrator: Ashley Seil Smith
'IntersectionAllies,' written by three sociologists, is a story about characters with different identities, including one who uses a wheelchair, and another, Kate, who identifies as transgender. One page shows Kate in a gender-neutral bathroom, saying, 'My friends defend my choices and place. A bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space.'
In the majority opinion, Alito describes a discussion guide included with the book that he said asserts: 'When we are born, our gender is often decided for us based on our sex . . . . But at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender.' The guide asks readers, 'What pronouns fit you best?' Alito wrote.
What Are Your Words?: A Book About Pronouns Author: Katherine LockeIllustrator: Anne Passchier
'What Are Your Words' is a picture book about a child named Ari whose pronouns are 'like the weather. They change depending on how I feel. And that's ok, because they're my words.' Ari's Uncle Lior (who uses they/them pronouns) is coming to visit, and Ari is struggling to decide which words describe them.
'The child spends the day agonizing over the right pronouns,' the lawyers for the parents wrote. At the end, while watching fireworks, Ari says, 'My words finally found me! They and them feel warm and snug to me.'
My RainbowAuthor: DeShanna Neal and Trinity NealIllustrator: Art Twink
'My Rainbow' tells the true story of a Black child with autism who self-identifies as a transgender girl. Trinity wants long hair, just like her doll, but has trouble growing it out. 'The mother decides that her child knows best and sews him a rainbow-colored wig,' lawyers for the parents wrote.
The Montgomery County Public Schools also stopped teaching 'My Rainbow' during the course of the lawsuit.
This article is part of The Times' early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
37 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Hungary Pride goes forward despite threat from repressive law
BUDAPEST — With the support of Budapest's liberal mayor, Hungary's LGBTQ+ community and supporters from Brussels and around the world were poised to hold Pride festivities this weekend, challenging an effort to ban the event by Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a self-declared 'illiberal' Christian conservative whose Fidesz party pushed through draconian legislation in March banning public events that portray or allegedly promote homosexuality.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NC State professor breaks down SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship, impact on North Carolina
RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) — A major Supreme Court ruling Friday appears to clear the way for President Donald Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship, but NC State political science professor Steven Greene said it is not clear if that is feasible – or how exactly it will impact North Carolina. Greene said it is important to note the Supreme Court's ruling did not take a position on the issue of birthright citizenship itself. The case dealt with Trump's executive order aimed at getting rid of birthright citizenship, specifically on an injunction handed down by a federal judge which blocked the executive order from taking effect. 'What the supreme court ruled is that a single federal judge cannot make a nationwide policy ruling against the government,' Greene explained. By ending the injunction, the ruling does appear to let Trump's executive order move forward. The order denies automatic citizenship to children born to parents who are not US citizens or legal residents. Greene said that is more complicated than it seems. 'It's not entirely clear, honestly, how exactly the Trump administration will look to enforce this, whether that gets enforced one way in red states that want to cooperate versus blue states that don't,' he said. North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson released a statement Friday: 'Because we took action to defend the Constitution, North Carolinians still have their Fourteenth Amendment right to full citizenship. While this case has been sent back to a lower court for review, our position remains unchanged. The language of the Fourteenth Amendment is clear, and we are going to defend it.' Greene said that likely means not much will change right away. 'The executive branch in North Carolina, as much as Republicans have tried to take power away, still has a Democratic governor, a Democratic attorney general, who would not at all be interested in trying to cooperate with these kinds of policies unless they absolutely had to, probably under court order,' he said. Greene said the biggest impact of Friday's ruling has little to do with birthright citizenship. He said the decision limits the court's ability to balance the president. 'It really does seem to free up President Trump to be able to do more,' he said. Greene also said birthright citizenship as a practice will probably come before the Supreme Court, and he thinks it is unlikely justices will rule against it. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Did Mamdani Win the Mayoral Primary? It's Probably Not That Complicated.
Sign up for the Surge, the newsletter that covers most important political nonsense of the week, delivered to your inbox every Saturday. Hello! You're reading the Surge, a weekly list of the most important players in what McKinsey & Company has told us to call 'the politics space.' (The recommendation cost $2 million dollars.) I'm Ben Mathis-Lilley, filling in for a few months for Jim Newell, and boy, was it hot out this week or what? I spent a lot of time, personally, putting little sticky weatherstripping bands around air conditioners. 'Frost King,' now there's a brand name that hits it right on the head. Hope whoever came up with that one got a nice bonus and a vacation somewhere warm (but not too warm, ha ha!). Oh, and speaking of summer stuff—the Surge will be off next weekend, for the Fourth. Anyway, it was a pretty eventful week! Republicans got a great excuse to abandon some bad ideas, a political dynasty was dumped in the East River, and Pete Hegseth got mad about mountains. But first—and with the full knowledge and awareness that we are not the first to say it—you don't mess with the Zohran. Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old state legislator, is the presumed winner of the New York City Democratic mayoral primary. Back in January, he was polling at around 2 percent in a race whose initial front-runner, Andrew Cuomo, had vastly more name recognition and money than any other candidate. Mamdani still trailed Cuomo by 8 points in an average of the last polls conducted before Election Day on Tuesday—but when Wednesday morning dawned, he was leading the former state governor by 7 percent and Cuomo had conceded. (The mayoral primary uses 'ranked choice' ballots whose official tallies won't be finished until next week.) How did he get this done as a self-described democratic socialist, critic of overpolicing, and supporter of Palestinian causes in a city that, reputation for leftism aside, has spent most of the last 30 years electing staunchly pro-Israel 'law and order' mayors? Basically, by walking around the city for months on end talking to people (and making charming videos of himself talking to people) about the high cost of living and what he would do about it. Crazy stuff! Sometimes, hard work and common sense pay off. Friday was the final day of the Supreme Court's session, and with the sense of dramatic timing and flair that scholarly jurists are known for, they saved the worst for last. The headliner was a 6–3 ruling, written by Amy Coney Barrett, declaring that judges are overstepping their authority when they issue nationwide injunctions, even if it's to stop a policy that violates the Constitution. Since Trump took office, numerous lower court judges have blocked his actions with such injunctions—including three who put a stop on his executive order decreeing that citizenship may not be issued to newborns whose parents are not legal U.S. residents. (The consensus for the past 120-odd years has been that the 14th Amendment says anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen.) The Trump administration appealed those rulings, and presented them to the Supreme Court as a chance not to weigh in on the constitutionality of his executive order itself, but to decide whether nationwide injunctions themselves are unlawfully rude and nasty. Guess what they decided? What a fortunate coincidence for the GOP that these six justices, appointed by Republican presidents, discovered that injunctions are illegal during this particular term, rather than the prior one in which a number of liberal policies were blocked by nationwide orders issued by conservative federal judges! And, one person who's definitely stoked that courts have lost their biggest tool to restrain the executive is Donald Trump. After much hemming and hawing, Donald Trump ordered a bombing raid against three underground Iranian nuclear research sites last Saturday. The bombs hit their targets, and Iran's 'retaliation' was essentially a symbolic gesture that did not inflict any casualties. But the question of whether the mission was a success hinges on how much of Iran's nuclear equipment and uranium were actually destroyed. At first, a leaked preliminary assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency speculated that the country's nuclear program had only been set back by 'months.' This was followed, later in the week, by analysis that suggested the damage may have been much more significant—but in the interim, Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth absolutely lost their minds about the suggestion that the operation had been anything but an 'unbelievable victory.' The president said journalists were 'scum' for writing about the DIA assessment—i.e., reporting on the government's own evaluation of how it did—while Hegseth, befitting his background as a Fox News himbo hype man, gave a press conference in which he called the bombing 'the most complex and successful military operation in history.' Step aside, evacuation of Dunkirk: Compared to dropping bombs on three targets in a country with no air defenses to speak of, you are garbage. But yeah, saying these kinds of ludicrous things is now the most important job requirement for being in the Cabinet. While Zohran Mamdani deserves credit for defeating Andrew Cuomo, someone else who deserves a lot of credit for it is, well, a certain Mr. Cuomo. Having resigned the governorship in disgrace after a state report found he'd sexually harassed 11 women (he denies wrongdoing), Cuomo saw an opening to run for mayor of New York, once #MeToo had died down. He campaigned on the premise that the city (which he does not seem to live in) is a disaster of crime and disorder which needs to be flooded with police. Never mind that crime is going down in New York, and its current mayor is himself a conservative Democrat who has already raised policing levels. There's always money in the banana stand of fearmongering 30-second TV ads about the subway—or so Mario Jr. thought. With confidence in this plan, bolstered by a wave of donations and endorsements from establishment figures and entities who figured his restoration was inevitable, Cuomo basically didn't bother to do much other campaigning at all. And while he may still try to run in the general election as an independent to appeal to high earners who are concerned about Mamdani's position on eating the rich, he faces very long odds in doing so. Every four years, according to prophecy, a woman named Elizabeth 'Danger' MacDonough will make the Surge. Why? Because Elizabeth 'The Midnight Strangler' MacDonough is the Senate's 'parliamentarian.' That means she is responsible for issuing rulings on whether certain types of legislation can be included in the budget bills that the chamber allows itself to pass via 51-vote majorities rather than the 60-vote 'filibuster-proof' majorities required for other bills. And every four years, typically, a new presidential regime and its congressional allies try to cram a bunch of stuff that they want to do (but couldn't get 60 votes for) into the budget. That's when MacDonough comes down from the highlands, holding an armful of knives, and starts a-cuttin'. This week, the provisions in Republicans' 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' that she ruled ineligible include a major cut to Medicaid funding that would have affected rural hospitals, as well as an effort to sell off millions of acres of public lands, including those in national forests. Senate Majority Leader John Thune quickly said that he would respect MacDonough's rulings (certainly not a given for them!). This could have something to do with the fact that even before she issued them, a fair number of Republicans themselves were gently suggesting to their colleagues that shutting down rural hospitals while selling off the national forests might be best described as 'political suicide.' Thanks for stopping by the news cycle, Elizabeth MacDonough, and we look forward to hearing from you in 2029 to get your thoughts about whether budget reconciliation is the appropriate venue for President AOC's imposition of transgender sharia law. Over yonder in California, the Marines and National Guard are still hanging out waiting for (who else?) federal judges to decide whether their deployment is legal or not. In the meantime, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is passing the time by filing (what else?) a federal lawsuit accusing Fox News host Jesse Watters of defaming him. Amid protests against ICE raids in Los Angeles, Trump said in the Oval Office on June 10 that he'd talked to Newsom 'a day ago,' i.e., June 9, when they had in fact not spoken since 1 a.m. Eastern on June 7. Watters, though, said on the air that Newsom was the one lying when he said he hadn't spoken to Trump on June 9. In a letter to Fox, Newsom's lawyers said he will dismiss the suit if he is given an on-air apology. Meanwhile, the president of the University of Virginia is resigning in order to resolve a federal 'investigation' into whether the school had illegally promoted diversity, while Harvard, which is in a similar position, has itself sued the feds. Our point is, given that every conflict in the United States is now resolved via standoffs in which dueling federal lawsuits are used as leverage, Surge readers should look into getting a lawyer. It had been a while since the U.S. threatened to impose huge tariffs on one of its allies via a semi-coherent social media post, hadn't it? That was kind of more of a spring trend. Well, it's back: Late Friday, Trump wrote on his Truth Social site that, because of a 'digital services' tax that Canada is about to start collecting from tech companies, he's decided to end trade negotiations with the country and will shortly be announcing a unilateral tariff (or another unilateral tariff, we suppose) on Canadian goods. It was, depending on how you count things, the sixth time he's changed his position on a matter of U.S.–Canada trade policy since February. Earlier this week, in fact, the Wall Street Journal reported that the digital services tax was not expected to be the subject of negotiation between the countries until next year. As of press time, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney had not commented on the matter; we hope that he eventually says he is sorry for what he did to so suddenly upset Mr. Trump (assuming he ever learns what that was).