logo
Parents can opt kids out of LGBTQ+ lessons after court decision: What it means for schools

Parents can opt kids out of LGBTQ+ lessons after court decision: What it means for schools

USA Today27-06-2025
The nation's highest court has spoken, but the debate over kids' exposure to LGBTQ+ literature and culture in America's schools is far from over.
Religious and conservative parents' rights groups are rejoicing while teachers, authors and civil rights advocates sound an alarm that schools could soon become less inclusive after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to allow parents to pull their children out of classes with material they object to on religious grounds.The divided court sided with a group of Maryland parents who complained that their school district refused to allow them to opt out their kids of English language arts classes when books with LGBTQ+ characters are included.
Parents from Montgomery County Public Schools – which include Muslims, Roman Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox followers – argued the district's policy banning them from opting out intruded on their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.
On June 27, the Supreme Court agreed with them in a 6-3 decision, saying American parents should be able to remove their kids from the lessons to protect their families' religious ideologies.
Books with LGBTQ+ teachings and characters "unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender," Justice Samuel Alito wrote on behalf of the court's majority. The court has long recognized the rights of parents to direct their children's religious upbringing, he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has backed the Maryland school district's policy, said the school district's curriculum, which began to include storybooks for elementary schools with LGBTQ+ characters in 2022, is secular, age-appropriate and designed to be inclusive. The ACLU called the decision "deeply disappointing."
"This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system," Liliana López, a spokesperson for the district, said in an email to USA TODAY on behalf of the school district and the Montgomery Board of Education. "It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community.
Public schools are facing heightened scrutiny over what's taught in their classrooms, increased pressure from conservative parents and additional surveillance over the programs and curriculum they offer to LGBTQ+ youth they serve. The court's decision represents the celebration and panic for parents across the political spectrum.
The Supreme Court's decision advances President Donald Trump's and several conservative parent rights groups' disdain against LGBTQ+ programming in schools. The Trump administration has backed the Maryland parents in the case, saying the schools had put 'a price on a public benefit of public education at the expense of foregoing your religious beliefs.'
GOP leaders: Are calling for religion in public schools. It's not the first time.
What could it mean for school culture?
Fears of an unwelcoming environment in public schools for LGBTQ+ students erupted after the decision.
LGBTQ+ students already face a high chance of rejection, bullying, discrimination and violence at school. These students are at high risk of mental health challenges like depression, anxiety and attempts of suicide, according to data from Child Mind Institute.
Attorneys from the ACLU said the Supreme Court's decision could have "far-reaching consequences for public schools' ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities."
The decision advances the mission of Trump and his education department to ban programming about LGTBQ+ and other social and racial justice issues in schools.
This year, the Trump administration has demanded public schools ax publicly funded programs that support diversity, equity and inclusion in schools. The DEI programming includes those that offer LGBTQ+ students support.
The U.S. Department of Education cannot directly control classroom curriculum, which is in the hands of the states. But it has said it will slash their federal funding for violating a federal civil rights law if they do not comply with the order. (Thousands of schools in more than a dozen states have objected.)
With the Supreme Court decision, the outcomes "could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society," said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
Mach called religious freedom "fundamentally important." But he said that freedom "shouldn't force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don't align with their families' religious views."
Parents who say schools shouldn't be the ones to teach their kids about these issues anticipate a more welcoming place for their families.
'This is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission," said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at The Becket Fund, a nonprofit, public-interest legal and educational institute with the mission of protecting free expressions of faiths. "Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents—not government—have the final say in how their children are raised."
Meanwhile, teachers are bracing for how the ruling could affect their lesson plans, students and classrooms.
'By creating new, unnecessary legal rules that burden hardworking educators and disrupt their ability to teach, the Court is effectively inserting itself into the day-to-day education decisions about what students can learn and what educators can teach," according to Miguel Gonzalez, a spokesperson for the National Education Association.
LGBTQ+ advocates See Trump's actions on Pride Month as 'bullying'
What about religion in schools?
Religious groups have applauded the Supreme Court's decision.
Their support comes during a GOP wave calling for more religion in schools.
Oklahoma's top education official has ordered public schools to teach the Bible. He also wanted state funding for a controversial religious charter school before that idea was shut down by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year in a deadlocked 4-4 decision.
Louisiana leaders directed schools to display the Ten Commandments, but that has been blocked by a federal court. Texas leaders proposed a curriculum that incorporates biblical lessons. Parents and faith leaders have filed a lawsuit against it.
Some school administrators and civil rights advocates have fought back, saying these mandates violate students' rights. Cecillia Wang, a national legal director of the ACLU, said she is worried about the court's decision to side with parents on this case because it could affect schools' ability to implement lessons in the future that may "trigger religious objections."
"For the first time now, parents with religious objections are empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption – ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences," Wang wrote in an email.
How about book bans?
The Maryland parents who sued the school district said they don't want the books removed from schools. But Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for free speech advocacy group PEN America, said further book bans across the nation's public schools are likely as a result of the court's decision.
"By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools," Brinkley said. "This will exacerbate that devastating trend."
A majority of the 16,000 books banned in schools since 2021 are LGBTQ+ themed, according to data from PEN America. The group's data shows book bans nearly tripled during the 2023-2024 school year, with over 10,000 books banned in public schools.
Parents who have argued for book bans across the nation often say that the content is inappropriate for a school setting. Or they disagree with the content in the literature and don't want their kids to be exposed to it.
A group of authors and illustrators named in the Maryland case said they disagree with the court's decision. Those include the authors and illustrators of LGBTQ+-themed books: "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," "Jacob's Room to Choose" and "Love, Violet."
"We believe young people need to see themselves and families like theirs in the books they read; this is especially true for LGBTQ+ children and LGBTQ+ families," they wrote in an email. "And all children need to learn how to share their classrooms and communities with people different from themselves. Books can help them understand one another and learn to treat each other with acceptance, kindness and respect."
United States public schools Banned over 10K books during 2023-2024 academic year, report says
Contributing: Maureen Groppe, Thao Nguyen; USA TODAY
Contact Kayla Jimenez at kjimenez@usatoday.com. Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Philippine Supreme Court blocks Duterte impeachment effort
Philippine Supreme Court blocks Duterte impeachment effort

UPI

time27 minutes ago

  • UPI

Philippine Supreme Court blocks Duterte impeachment effort

Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte criticized Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and accused him of being unfit for the job of the president during an Oct. 18 news conference. File Photo by Rolex Dela Pena/EPA-EFE July 26 (UPI) -- An impeachment proceeding against Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte can't proceed due to a constitutional limit on the annual number of impeachments, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled. The Philippine Constitution bans multiple impeachment proceedings in a given year, so Duterte could not be impeached until February, the nation's Supreme Court announced on Friday, the BBC reported. The ruling does not prevent Duterte's impeachment, but it delays it until an impeachment proceeding would not violate the Philippine Constitution. "It is not our duty to favor any political result," the court said in its ruling. "Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the rule of just law." The court said it is prepared to address the claims against Duterte "at the proper time and before the appropriate forum." Lawmakers in the Philippine Parliament's lower house in February voted to impeach Duterte for allegedly misusing taxpayer dollars and threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. It was the fourth impeachment case received by the lower chamber from December to February, one of which was transferred to the Senate. Duterte is the daughter of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and formerly was a close political ally of Marcos. She is considered to be a viable candidate for the nation's presidency during the 2028 election cycle after she and Marcos had a political fallout. Duterte and Marcos in 2022 formed what they called the "Uniteam," which temporarily united two of the nation's most powerful political families. After the pair secured wins in the May 2022 elections, the Uniteam began to fray. Duterte's father called Marcos a "drug addict," and Duterte in November said she ensured the president would be killed if she were killed first. The elder Duterte afterward was extradited to the Hague to be tried for alleged crimes against humanity due the deaths of thousands arising from his administration's war on drugs. Rodrigo Duterte was president for six years from June 2016 to June 2022. Sara Duterte says the accusations against her are politically motivated, although many supporting her impeachment note that 12 of the nation's 15 Supreme Court justices were appointed by her father.

Trump's golf trip to Scotland reopens old wounds for some of his neighbors
Trump's golf trip to Scotland reopens old wounds for some of his neighbors

USA Today

timean hour ago

  • USA Today

Trump's golf trip to Scotland reopens old wounds for some of his neighbors

BALMEDIE, Scotland − Long before talk of hush-money payments, election subversion or mishandling classified documents, before his executive orders were the subject of U.S. Supreme Court challenges, before he was the 45th and then the 47th president: on a wild and windswept stretch of beach in northeast Scotland, Donald Trump the businessman was accused of being a bad neighbor. "This place will never, ever belong to Trump," Michael Forbes, 73, a retired quarry worker and salmon fisherman, said this week as he took a break from fixing a roof on his farm near Aberdeen. The land he owns is surrounded, though disguised in places by trees and hedges, by a golf resort owned by Trump's family business in Scotland, Trump International Scotland. For nearly 20 years, Forbes and several other families who live in Balmedie have resisted what they describe as bullying efforts by Trump to buy their land. (He has denied the allegations.) They and others also say he's failed to deliver on his promises to bring thousands of jobs to the area. Those old wounds are being reopened as Trump returns to Scotland for a four-day visit beginning July 25. It's the country where his mother was born. He appears to have great affection for it. Trump is visiting his golf resorts at Turnberry, on the west coast about 50 miles from Glasgow, and at Balmedie, where Forbes' 23 acres of jumbled, tractor-strewn land, which he shares with roaming chickens and three Highland cows, abut Trump's glossy and manicured golf resort. On July 28, Trump will briefly meet in Balmedie with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to "refine" a recent U.S.-U.K. trade deal, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Golf, a little diplomacy: Trump heads to Scotland In Scotland, where estimates from the National Library of Scotland suggest that as many as 34 out of the 45 American presidents have Scottish ancestry, opinions hew toward the he's-ill-suited-for-the-job, according to surveys. "Trump? He just doesn't know how to treat people," said Forbes, who refuses to sell. What Trump's teed up in Scotland Part of the Balmedie community's grievances relate to Trump's failure to deliver on his promises. According to planning documents, public accounts and his own statements, Trump promised, beginning in 2006, to inject $1.5 billion into his golf project six miles north of Aberdeen. He has spent about $120 million. Approval for the development, he vowed, came with more than 1,000 permanent jobs and 5,000 construction gigs attached. Instead, there were 84, meaning fewer than the 100 jobs that already existed when the land he bought was a shooting range. Instead of a 450-room luxury hotel and hundreds of homes that Trump pledged to build for the broader community, there is a 19-room boutique hotel and a small clubhouse with a restaurant and shop that sells Trump-branded whisky, leather hip flasks and golf paraphernalia. Financial filings show that his course on the Menie Estate in Balmedie lost $1.9 million in 2023 − its 11th consecutive financial loss since he acquired the 1,400-acre grounds in 2006. Residents who live and work near the course say that most days, even in the height of summer, the fairway appears to be less than half full. Representatives for Trump International say the plan all along has been to gradually phase in the development at Balmedie and that it is not realistic or fair to expect everything to be built overnight. There's also support for Trump from some residents who live nearby, and in the wider Aberdeen business community. One Balmedie resident who lives in the shadow of Trump's course said that before Trump the area was nothing but featureless sand dunes and that his development, carved between those dunes, made the entire landscape look more attractive. Fergus Mutch, a policy advisor for the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, said Trump's golf resort has become a "key bit of the tourism offer" that attracts "significant spenders" to a region gripped by economic turmoil, steep job cuts and a prolonged downturn in its North Sea oil and gas industry. Trump in Scotland: Liked or loathed? Still, recent surveys show that 70% of Scots hold an unfavorable opinion of Trump. Despite his familial ties and deepening investments in Scotland, Trump is more unpopular among Scots than with the British public overall, according to an Ipsos survey from March. It shows 57% of people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't view Trump positively. King Charles invites Trump: American president snags another UK state visit While in Balmedie this time, Trump will open a new 18-hole golf course on his property dedicated to his mother, Mary Anne MacLeod, who was a native of Lewis, in Scotland's Western Isles. He is likely to be met with a wave of protests around the resort, as well as the one in Turnberry. The Stop Trump Coalition, a group of campaigners who oppose most of Trump's domestic and foreign policies and the way he conducts his private and business affairs, is organizing a protest in Aberdeen and outside the U.S. consulate in Edinburgh. During Trump's initial visit to Scotland as president, in his first term, thousands of protesters sought to disrupt his visit, lining key routes and booing him. One protester even flew a powered paraglider into the restricted airspace over his Turnberry resort that bore a banner that read, "Trump: well below par #resist." 'Terrific guy': The Trump-Epstein party boy friendship lasted a decade, ended badly Trump's course in Turnberry has triggered less uproar than his Balmedie one because locals say that he's invested millions of dollars to restore the glamour of its 101-year-old hotel and three golf courses after he bought the site in 2014. Trump versus the families Three families still live directly on or adjacent to Trump's Balmedie golf resort. They say that long before the world had any clue about what type of president a billionaire New York real estate mogul and reality-TV star would become, they had a pretty good idea. Forbes is one of them. He said that shortly after Trump first tried to persuade him and his late wife to sell him their farm, workers he hired deliberately sabotaged an underground water pipe that left the Forbes – and his mother, then in her 90s, lived in her own nearby house – without clean drinking water for five years. Trump International declined to provide a fresh comment on those allegations, but a spokesperson previously told USA TODAY it "vigorously refutes" them. It said that when workers unintentionally disrupted a pipe that ran into an "antiquated" makeshift "well" jointly owned by the Forbeses on Trump's land, it was repaired immediately. Trump has previously called Forbes a "disgrace" who "lives like a pig." 'I don't have a big enough flagpole' David Milne, 61, another of Trump's seething Balmedie neighbors, lives in a converted coast guard station with views overlooking Trump's course and of the dunes and the North Sea beyond. In 2009, Trump offered him and his wife about $260,000 for his house and its one-fifth acre of land, Milne said. Trump was caught on camera saying he wanted to remove it because it was "ugly." Trump, he said, "threw in some jewelry," a golf club membership (Milne doesn't play), use of a spa (not yet built) and the right to buy, at cost, a house in a related development (not yet constructed). Milne valued the offer at about half the market rate. When Milne refused that offer, he said that landscapers working for Trump partially blocked the views from his house by planting a row of trees and sent Milne a $3,500 bill for a fence they'd built around his garden. Milne refused to pay. Over the years, Milne has pushed back. He flew a Mexican flag at his house for most of 2016, after Trump vowed to build a wall on the southern American border and make Mexico pay for it. Milne, a health and safety consultant in the energy industry, has hosted scores of journalists and TV crews at his home, where he has patiently explained the pros and cons − mostly cons, in his view, notwithstanding his own personal stake in the matter − of Trump's development for the local area. Milne said that because of his public feud with Trump, he's a little worried a freelance MAGA supporter could target him or his home. He has asked police to provide protection for him and his wife at his home while Trump is in the area. He also said he won't be flying any flags this time, apart from the Saltire, Scotland's national flag. "I don't have a big enough flagpole. I would need one from Mexico, Canada, Palestine. I would need Greenland, Denmark − you name it," he said, running through some of the places toward which Trump has adopted what critics view as aggressive and adversarial policies. Dunes of great natural importance Martin Ford was the local Aberdeen government official who originally oversaw Trump's planning application to build the Balmedie resort in 2006. He was part of a planning committee that rejected it over environmental concerns because the course would be built between sand dunes that were designated what the UK calls a Site of Special Scientific Interest due to the way they shift over time. The Scottish government swiftly overturned that ruling on the grounds that Trump's investment in the area would bring a much-needed economic boost. Neil Hobday, who was the project director for Trump's course in Balmedie, last year told the BBC he was "hoodwinked" by Trump over his claim that he would spend more than a billion dollars on it. Hobday said he felt "ashamed that I fell for it and Scotland fell for it. We all fell for it." The dunes lost their special status in 2020, according to Nature Scot, the agency that oversees such designations. It concluded that their special features had been "partially destroyed" by Trump's resort. Trump International disputes that finding, saying the issue became "highly politicized." For years, Trump also fought to block the installation of a wind farm off his resort's coast. He lost that fight. The first one was built in 2018. There are now 11 turbines. Ford has since retired but stands by his belief that allowing approval for the Trump resort was a mistake. "I feel cheated out of a very important natural habitat, which we said we would protect and we haven't," he said. "Trump came here and made a lot of promises that haven't materialized. In return, he was allowed to effectively destroy a nature site of great conservation value. It's not the proper behavior of a decent person." Forbes, the former quarry worker and fisherman, said he viewed Trump in similar terms. He said that Trump "will never ever get his hands on his farm." He said that wasn't just idle talk. He said he's put his land in a trust that specified that when he dies, it can't be sold for at least 125 years.

CNN Analyst Stunned After Trump Botches 'Easiest Question In Human History'
CNN Analyst Stunned After Trump Botches 'Easiest Question In Human History'

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

CNN Analyst Stunned After Trump Botches 'Easiest Question In Human History'

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig was blown away after hearing President Donald Trump's answer to a question about whether he would pardon convicted sex trafficker and close Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell. 'It's the easiest question in human history,' Honig told host Michael Smerconish on Saturday, quoting colleague Kevin Liptak as appropriately asking, 'Are you kidding me?' Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence after being convicted of helping Epstein sexually abuse underage girls. On Friday, following the news that the Justice Department's No. 2 official had met with Maxwell in federal prison, a reporter asked Trump if he would consider a pardon or commutation for her. 'It's something I haven't thought about,' Trump replied. 'I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about.' Honig expressed bewilderment at the answer. 'A pardon for the single worst, or No. 2 after Jeffrey Epstein, worst child sex trafficker in modern history?' he said. 'Absolutely not. N-O.' Ultimately, Honig said it was 'hard to imagine' that Trump would pardon Maxwell, though he noted 'other people who I know who are closer to Donald Trump and who have worked with him in the past say it could well happen.' Trump is facing escalating demands to release the files related to the case against the late Epstein, as the press continues to dig into his past friendship with the disgraced financier. The president left the country on Friday for a golf-heavy trip to Scotland, and was bombarded with questions about Epstein from reporters before takeoff and after touchdown. Related... Trump Claims He 'Never Went' To Epstein's Island, Tells People To Focus On Bill Clinton Instead Joe Rogan On Trump Administration's Handling Of Epstein Files: 'Do You Think We're Babies?' Trump's Calendar Girls Party Had Only 1 Other Guest: Jeffrey Epstein

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store