Supreme Court likely to side with parents in letting them opt out of LGBTQ storybooks, expert says
"This looks pretty promising for the parent petitioners in this case," said Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow of the grassroots organization Defending Education. "I heard a lot of very aggressive questioning from the three liberal justices, but no matter how you slice this apple, it looks to be a very clear violation of the First Amendment, as exercised through the 14th Amendment's right to direct a child's religious upbringing."
Perry previously served as the lead lawyer to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education from 2020 to 2021, where she drafted the Office for Civil Rights' (OCR) annual report to Congress.
The Supreme Court Appears To Side With Parents In Religious Liberty Dispute Over Storybooks
"They're very malleable," Perry said of the 4-and 5-year-olds in the case. "They're very much shaped by their environment, by what they're exposed to, and they don't have the meaningful agency to be able to opt out or object or push back. And so these individuals are learning their own familial values while being exposed to material that is, as Justice [Amy Coney] Barrett and Justice [Neil] Gorsuch pointed out, designed to influence their thinking."
At the heart of Mahmoud v. Taylor is a lawsuit brought by religious parents—Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox—who argue that the school district's policy violates their First Amendment rights by forcing their children to engage with instruction that contradicts their faith.
Read On The Fox News App
The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school.
Several conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, appeared sympathetic to the parents' concerns during the two-and-a-half-hour oral debate. Alito questioned the moral messages conveyed by books like "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," suggesting that such content might conflict with deeply held religious beliefs. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also pressed the school district's attorneys on why opt-out provisions, similar to those in sex education, could not be extended to these storybooks.
Parents Tell Scotus: Lgbtq Storybooks In Classrooms Clash With Our Faith
Meanwhile, the liberal justices argued that mere exposure to these books may not constitute coercion or a violation of religious freedoms. The school district contended that the policy promotes inclusivity and exposure to LGBTQ viewpoints does not equate to forced belief changes.
"I think it was highly sort of predictable," Perry said of the liberal justices' arguments. "They are trying to prove that there is going to be too much of a burden on the school district to allow these children to opt out because the consequences could, for example, be catastrophic for the ability of a public school to manage its own affairs."
"The reason we see an issue like this at the Supreme Court is because these are issues directly related to religious liberty and directly related to the very early cognitive stages of development for minor children," Perry said. "And it's very clear … that a burden of religious liberty within public education has to be treated quite seriously by the court and deference must be given to religious parents if the burden is very clear."
"I think in this instance, it is indeed crystal clear," she added.
Lawsuit Tracker: New Resistance Battling Trump's Second Term Through Onslaught Of Lawsuits Taking Aim At Eos
Among the storybooks at the center of the case is "Prince & Knight," a modern fairy tale aimed at children ages 4 to 8, which tells the story of two men who fall in love after joining forces to defeat a dragon and later marry. Another book frequently referenced during oral arguments was "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which follows a young girl processing her favorite uncle's decision to marry another man.
Click To Get The Fox News App
"Because parental rights have become sort of the cultural zeitgeist for where we are in this political day and age, I think we are certain to see more litigation, not less, and more pushback," Perry said.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case by late June.Original article source: Supreme Court likely to side with parents in letting them opt out of LGBTQ storybooks, expert says
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Confederate statue dedicated to ‘faithful slaves' targeted in class-action lawsuit
A federal lawsuit filed in Columbia, North Carolina is targeting a Confederate monument outside a courthouse that bears an inscription with the line "IN APPRECIATION OF OUR FAITHFUL SLAVES." The lawsuit is calling for that portion of the inscription to be removed or covered up. 'I just remember thinking that slaves had to be so-called faithful or they would be punished or even worse,' Sherryreed Robinson, one of the members of the lawsuit, told the New York Times. 'As an adult, the words sitting on the grounds of a courthouse made me question whether Blacks could really receive justice there.' Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that a portion of the lawsuit could move forward. Tyrrell County officials have been resistant to taking action themselves, citing state monument protection laws that, they say, bars them from making any changes to the monument. The challenge to the statue — which sits on the lawn of the Tyrrell County Courthouse — comes at a time when President Donald Trump and his administration are restoring Confederate names and monuments after many were demolished and destroyed during or in response to racial justice protests in 2020. In June, Trump demanded that the military restore Confederate names that had been previously removed from military bases. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered that a Confederate sculpture removed from Arlington National Cemetery be re-installed. The lawsuit in North Carolina was launched last year — before Trump returned to office — by the Concerned Citizens of Tyrrell County, which is made up primarily of older Black residents. The filing argues that the "faithful slave" portion of its inscription constitutes racial discrimination in government speech, which the litigants argue is a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. It calls for the county to remove or cover the message. Tyrrell County officials moved to have the lawsuit dismissed in 2024, arguing that county officials cannot change the monument based on a state law limiting how an "object of remembrance" on state property can be changed or moved. 'The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that county commissioners are bound by this statute, and that commissioners who are bound by this statute are not motivated by a discriminatory intent,' the motion reads. 'Tyrrell County should not be subject to liability based on its decision to follow state law.' The statue was one of many Confederate monuments erected during the Jim Crow era in the wake of the U.S. Civil War. The Tyrell Monument Association, founded by former Confederate Army lieutenant colonel William Fessenden Beasley, gifted the monument to the county. It has stood on the courthouse lawn since 1902. It depicts a Confederate soldier standing on a base that includes a bust of General Robert E Lee. There are inscriptions on each of the base's four sides, one of which includes the reference to "faithful slaves." Mark Snell Brickhouse, whose great-great-grandfather's name is one of many Confederates' etched on the monument, said he visits the monument and the family cemetery because it honors his family, but he told the Times he agrees that the "faithful slave" portion should be covered. 'I love the statue because it honors my family members,' Brickhouse, 72, told the paper. 'But I can see how the words are offensive to some people. I think the statue should stay because it reflects our history, but those words should be covered.' The Concerned Citizens of Tyrell County tried in the 1990's to have the statue removed completely, but have since changed their course, only asking for the reference to slaves to be removed or covered. Ian Mance, a lawyer with Emancipate North Carolina, a racial justice and advocacy group, told the Times that the statue outside the Tyrrell County Courthouse is the only known Confederate monument that directly endorses or shows an appreciation for, slavery. 'This is the only monument of its kind at a courthouse with that language of appreciation, or an endorsement, of slavery on it,' he said. 'You are talking about families who have been here since before the Civil War. For them, there is this feeling that this monument is offering commentary about their families.' According to Mance, the lawsuit is not seeking damages.
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Mayor Adams slams Mamdani for wanting to decriminalize prostitution: ‘Don't know where in his Quran it states that it's OK'
Mayor Eric Adams rebuked mayoral candidate Zohran's Mamdani in religious terms over the socialist candidate's longstanding push to decriminalize prostitution – saying the candidate was 'lost' on the grim reality of sex work. 'I can't be more clear. I'm a man of God, just as Mamdani says he's a Muslim. I don't know where in his Quran it states that it's ok for a woman to be on the streets selling their body,' Hizzoner told reporters Sunday. 3 Mayor Eric Adams speaks with reporters on Sunday. NY Post/Steven Vago Advertisement 'I don't know what Quran he is reading. It's not in my Bible.' He also said Mamdani's position ignores the victims of sex trafficking. 'You're not doing any service to a woman who is on the street who is forced to sell her body for whatever reason,' Adams told reporters Sunday. Advertisement 3 A woman suspected of being a prostitute on Roosevelt Avenue in Queens. NY Post 3 Frontrunner candidate Zohran Mamdani has been quiet on the issue of prostitution during his mayoral campaign. Michael Nigro 'We are trying to bring down crime and he is talking about legalizing sex work. Number one: As a man who said he is of faith, I don't quite understand what religion supports prostitution. I think he's lost on the fact that sex trafficking is very much part of prostitution,' he added. Adams' comments came after The Post cast the spotlight on Mamdani's past push to change the statue that makes it a crime for people to sell their bodies for sex in New York. It's an issue he has taken up multiple times since he ran for state assembly in 2020 and has continually supported since. Advertisement But the 33-year-old Democratic candidate has been largely mum on the issue since he started his run for mayor, leaving critics worried that he might make a sudden push for legal prostitution if he makes it into office in the fall. And Adams – who is running for reelection as an independent — thinks it would be reprehensible to green-light the practice. 'If that is his belief, it is a danger for our city. Our city needs to be a safe city. It should not be a city where women are standing on corners, or boys are standing on corners, or young men standing on corners selling their bodies,' he said.
CNN
7 hours ago
- CNN
How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months
The Supreme Court's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn't the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall. From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President Donald Trump's effort to consolidate power to a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are 'outdated,' 'poorly reasoned' or 'egregiously wrong.' While many of those decisions are not as prominent as the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that gave same-sex couples access to marriage nationwide, some may be more likely to find a receptive audience. Generally, both conservative and liberal justices are reticent to engage in do-overs because it undermines stability in the law. And independent data suggests the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been less willing to upend past rulings on average than earlier courts. But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority hasn't shied from overturning precedent in recent years – notably on abortion but also affirmative action and government regulations. The court's approval in polling has never fully recovered from its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion. Here are some past rulings the court could reconsider in the coming months. Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court's conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump's second term have only expedited its demise. The 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. US, stands for the idea that Congress may shield the heads of independent federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Product Safety Commission, from being fired by the president without cause. But in recent years, the court has embraced the view that Congress overstepped its authority with those for-cause requirements on the executive branch. Court watchers largely agree 'that Humphrey's Executor is next on the Supreme Court's chopping block, meaning the next case they are slated to reverse,' said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who worked in the Biden administration. In a series of recent emergency orders, the court has allowed Trump – ever eager to remove dissenting voices from power – to fire leaders of independent agencies who were appointed by former President Joe Biden. The court's liberal wing has complained that, following those decisions, the Humphrey's decision is already effectively dead. 'For 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States has stood as a precedent of this court,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote last month. 'Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.' Through the end of the Supreme Court term that ended in June, the Roberts court overruled precedent an average of 1.5 times each term, according to Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who oversees the Supreme Court Database. That compares with 2.9 times on average prior to Roberts, dating to 1953. An important outstanding question is which case challenging Humphrey's will make it to the Supreme Court – and when. The high court has already agreed to hear an appeal – possibly this year – that could overturn a 2001 precedent limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Democrats warn the appeal, if successful, could 'blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates.' In a lawsuit initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and other Republicans, the challengers describe the 2001 decision upholding the caps – FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee – as an 'aberration' that was 'plainly wrong the day it was decided.' If a majority of the court thinks the precedent controls the case, they wrote in their appeal, 'it should overrule that outdated decision.' Republicans say the caps are hopelessly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern campaign finance doctrine and that they have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' such as super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but do not coordinate with candidates. In recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to shoot down campaign finance rules as violating the First Amendment. A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys' fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court's decision and decline to issue the licenses. Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a 'mistake' that 'must be corrected.' 'If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,' Davis told the justices in her appeal. Even if there are five justices willing to overturn the decision – and there are plenty of signs there are not – many court watchers believe Davis' appeal is unlikely to be the vehicle for that review. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote recently that there are 'multiple flaws' with Davis' case. People in the private sector – say, a wedding cake baker or a website developer – likely have a First Amendment right to exercise their objections to same-sex marriage. But, Somin wrote, public employees are a very different matter. 'They are not exercising their own rights,' he wrote, 'but the powers of the state.' Days after returning to the bench in October to begin a new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant appeals on its docket. The case centers on Louisiana's fraught congressional districts map and whether the state violated the 14th Amendment when it drew a second majority-Black district. If the court sides with a group of self-described 'non-Black voters,' it could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Three years ago, a federal court ruled that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When state lawmakers tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, a group of White voters sued. Another court then ruled that the new district was drawn based predominantly on race and thus violated the Constitution. The court heard oral arguments in the case in March. But rather than issuing a decision, it then took the unusual step in June of holding the case for more arguments. Earlier this month, the court ordered more briefing on the question of whether the creation of a majority-minority district to remedy a possible Voting Rights Act violation is constitutional. The case has nationwide implications; if the court rules that lawmakers can't fix violations of the Voting Rights Act by drawing new majority-minority districts, it could make it virtually impossible to enforce the landmark 1965 law when it comes to redistricting. That outcome could effectively overturn a line of Supreme Court precedents dating to its 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, in which the court ruled that North Carolina had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Just two years ago, the court ordered officials in Alabama to redraw the state's congressional map, upholding a lower court decision that found the state had violated the statute. 'Some opponents of the Voting Rights Act may urge the court to go further and overturn long-standing precedents, but there's absolutely no reason to go there,' said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting and voting rights and a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. The case will not affect the battle raging over redistricting and the effort by Texas Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries to benefit their party. That's because the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymanders. What's at stake in the Louisiana case, instead, is how far lawmakers may go in considering race when they redraw congressional and state legislative boundaries every decade. Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was killed in 2021 on Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri when a civilian employee driving a government-issued van turned in front of his motorcycle. When his wife tried to sue the federal government for damages, she was blocked by a 1950 Supreme Court decision that severely limits damages litigation from service members and their families. The pending appeal from Beck's family, which the court will review behind closed doors next month, will give the justices another opportunity to reconsider that widely criticized precedent. The so-called Feres Doctrine generally prohibits service members from suing the government for injuries that arose 'incident to service.' The idea is that members of the military can't sue the government for injuries that occur during wartime or training. But critics say the upshot is that service members have been barred from filing routine tort claims – including for traffic accidents involving government vehicles – that anyone else could file. 'This court should overrule Feres,' Justice Clarence Thomas, a stalwart conservative, wrote earlier this year in a similar case the court declined to hear. 'It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars.' Thomas is correct that criticism of the opinion has bridged ideologies. The Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, authored a brief in the Beck case arguing that the 'sweeping bar to recovery for servicemembers' adopted by the Feres decision 'is at odds' with what Congress intended. But the federal government, regardless of which party controls the White House, has long rejected those arguments. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Beck's case, noting that Feres has 'been the law for more than 70 years, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court.' Prominent religious groups are taking aim at a 25-year-old Supreme Court precedent that barred prayer from being broadcast over the public address system before varsity football games at a Texas high school. In that 6-3 decision, the court ruled that a policy permitting the student-led prayer violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment that blocks the government from establishing a state religion. But the court's makeup and views on religion have shifted substantially since then, with a series of significant rulings that thinned the wall that once separated church from state. When the justices meet in late September to decide whether to grant new appeals, they will weigh a request to overturn that earlier decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The new case involves a Christian school in Florida that was forbidden by the state athletic association from broadcasting the prayer ahead of a championship game with another religious school. The Supreme Court should overrule Santa Fe 'as out of step with its more recent government-speech precedent,' the school's attorneys told the high court in its appeal. 'Santa Fe,' they said, 'was dubious from the outset.' It is an argument that may find purchase with the court's conservatives, who have increasingly framed state policies that exclude religious actors as discriminatory. In 2022, the high court reinstated a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who lost his job at a public high school after praying at the 50-yard line after games. Those prayers, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court at the time, amounted to 'a brief, quiet, personal religious observance.' Kennedy submitted a brief in the new case urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal – and to now let pregame prayers reverberate through the stadium. The school, Kennedy's lawyers wrote, 'has a longstanding tradition of, and deeply held belief in, opening games with a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker.'
