Supreme Court sides with religious parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools
In a 6-3 decision that divided along ideological lines, the court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs burdens parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the court has long recognized the rights of parents to direct their children's religious upbringing.
The books, he said, "unmistakably convey a partaicular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender."
"And the (school) Board has specficially encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree," he wrote.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the deicsion "threatens the very essence of public education," which includes exposure to new ideas.
"The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the demoratic process and local administrators," she wrote. "The reveberations of the Court's error will be feld, I fear, for generations."
The Maryland parents – who include Muslims, Roman Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox followers – said they're not trying to prevent other students from reading the books.
But free speech advocates argued that will be the practical effect.
And national organizations representing school administrators worried schools could face a 'bewildering variety' of religious rights claims.
In classrooms across the country, children are routinely taught ideas that conflict with their family's religious beliefs, lawyers for the Montgomery County Public Schools told the court during April's oral arguments.
School officials said they introduced a handful of books with LGBTQ+ characters into the reading curriculum at the start of the 2022-2023 school year as part of an effort to better reflect the community.
The school system, in suburban Washington, is one of the nation's largest and most ethnically and religiously diverse.
The controversial books include one in which the handsome prince falls in love not with a princess, but with the knight who helps him defeat a dragon. In another, 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' Chloe's favorite uncle gets married to another man.
The book 'Intersection Allies' features nine kids from different backgrounds, including Alejandra, who uses a wheelchair while playing basketball; Adilah, who wears a hijab in ballet class; and Kate, who prefers a superhero cape to 'skirts and frills.'
More: What LGBTQ+ books are at the center of a new Supreme Court case?
After various teachers, administrators and parents raised concerns about the effectiveness and age-appropriateness of the books, the school system allowed students to be excused when they were read in class.
But officials said they had to stop that because the growing number of opt-out requests created other problems, such as high absenteeism and the difficulty of arranging alternate instruction. They also said students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families could face social stigma and isolation if classmates leave the room when the books are read.
The parents who then sued said they shouldn't have to send their kids to private school or to homeschool to avoid instruction that goes against the tenets of their religions.
'Intentionally exposing our young, impressionable, elementary-aged son to activities and curriculum on sex, sexuality, and gender that undermine Islamic teaching on these subjects would be immoral and would conflict with our religious duty to raise our children in accordance with our faith,' parents Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat said in a court filing about why they didn't want their son to be part of his second grade class's reading of 'Prince & Knight.'
But a divided panel of appeals court judges said the parents hadn't shown that they or their children had been coerced to believe or act contrary to their religious views.
The parents asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
The Trump administration backed the parents, saying the schools had put 'a price on a public benefit of public education at the expense of foregoing your religious beliefs.'
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court sides with parents trying to avoid LGBTQ+ books
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A voter targeted by Judge Griffin in 2024 NC Supreme Court race testifies before Congress
Mary Kay Heling of Raleigh testifies before Congress about ending up on NC Judge Jefferson Griffin's list of people whose votes he wanted discounted despite the fact that she had supplied all required registration information and showed her license to vote. (Photo: Screenshot from video) GOP Appeals Court Judge Jefferson Griffin's attempt to throw out more than 60,000 votes to win a Supreme Court seat landed in the national spotlight on Tuesday, this time through congressional testimony from one of the people he targeted. Mary Kay Heling, a Raleigh resident, told the Committee on House Administration that she ended up on Griffin's list last year even though she had voted without problems in primaries and general elections since 2016. The committee hearing was focused on maintaining accurate voter rolls. While Republicans said states could get away with not doing much to ensure only qualified voters were on their lists, Democrats warned that legal voters were being caught in Republican purges. Part of Griffin's challenge was based on the claim that voters failed to provide a partial Social Security number or driver's license number on their voter registration forms. Heling said she provided the last four digits of her Social Security number on the registration form and presented her driver's license at polling places when state law required voter ID. 'Never once did I doubt my vote was valid,' she said. After the November election, she received a postcard from the state GOP saying her vote might be challenged. She scanned the QR code on the postcard and spent more than an hour searching unsuccessfully for her name among thousands of others. It was later, searching a more user-friendly database, that she found she was on Griffin's list. She went to the Wake Board of Elections office to identify and correct any problem. 'It took work and persistence,'' she said. 'It was frustrating and time consuming.' Though state appellate courts ruled in favor of elements of Griffin's lawsuits, a federal judge ended Griffin's attempt to overturn Democratic Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs' victory. Griffin's election lawsuit mirrored a Republican National Committee and state GOP lawsuit that sought to have more than 225,000 voters purged from the rolls before last year's election, claiming the missing numbers meant those voters were not legally registered. The House committee also heard testimony about maintaining accurate voter lists from two conservative group representatives, J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, and Justin Riemer, president and CEO at Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections. They said the National Voter Registration Act's standards for voter roll maintenance are too low. Riemer encouraged the committee to eliminate or modify the 90-day 'blackout period' found in federal law that prohibits the systematic removal of voters from the rolls 90 days before a primary or federal general election. Relying on U.S. Postal Service change of address information is insufficient, he said, because it fails to capture everyone who has moved. Federal law should require states to exchange registration information with one another, he added. 'This is wholly inadequate given the multitude of data sources available to election officials today,' he said. A nonprofit organization called ERIC was established to help states maintain voter registration files. It offers members reports on people who have moved within state, out of state, and identifies duplicate voter registrations. Conservatives, however, grew suspicious of ERIC and Republican-run states pulled out of the group. North Carolina passed a law prohibiting membership. NPR reported that the far-right website Gateway Pundit started the Republican rush to leave ERIC. Republican U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, the committee's chairman, said voter list maintenance is crucial to election integrity. 'Inaccurate voter rolls could open the door to election fraud,' he said. 'It can hinder public confidence in our elections.' States can avoid properly maintaining their voter lists because federal standards are low, Steil said. Democrats on the committee used Heling's experience as an example of how difficult it is for voters to defend themselves when they are wrongfully targeted. Though Griffin's lawsuit failed, Democrats representing other states said registrations of legal voters had been erased in voter purges. It's voter purges that undermine confidence in elections, said U.S. Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the committee's senior Democrat. 'The Trump administration's dangerous, false rhetoric' going back to the 2020 election erodes democracy and threatens the voting rights of all Americans, he said. He called Griffin's effort to cancel Heling's vote 'part of a concerted effort to concentrate partisan power.' Proper voter list maintenance is important to secure elections, he said. 'But systematic voter purges, often illegally conducted in the run-up to federal elections, pose a real threat to voters.' The U.S. Department of Justice sued the North Carolina Board of Elections over the missing numbers in the voter database. In consultation with the DOJ, the state Board of Elections developed a plan to collect the information. Last week, elections officials vowed that no voters would be removed from the rolls. People who have not supplied the numbers will be required to vote provisionally. If they don't put the information on the provisional ballot application, their votes in state races won't count. Republicans have taken the majority on the state Board of Elections and hired Republican Sam Hayes, former general counsel to GOP House Speaker Destin Hall, to run the state elections office. North Carolina U.S. Rep. Greg Murphy (R- 3rd District), a member of the committee, said the previous election board administration failed to address the problem of missing identification numbers. 'I'm happy to say now the legislature has taken control of the Board of Elections and turned it over to Republican control,' Murphy said. 'And now, the Republicans have begun the Registration Repair Project to ensure that all eligible voters have accurate, complete information on file.' Morelle referred to the lawsuit against North Carolina as an example of Trump's weaponization of the Justice Department that is putting 200,000 people at risk of not being able to vote. The Board of Elections is keeping an updated list of people who need to supply ID numbers. As of Tuesday evening, about 101,000 people were on it.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Federal judge tosses Trump administration effort to end union rights for federal workers
A Trump-appointed federal judge tossed a suit brought by the administration in a preemptive move to strip collective bargaining rights from federal employees. The Trump administration brought the suit in the one-judge district in Texas shortly after signing an order seeking to end union rights at 18 different federal agencies. The suit sought a declaratory judgment from a Waco court that the White House has 'the power to rescind or repudiate' collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) across numerous agencies. But U.S. District Court Judge Alan Albright declined to do so, siding with unions in determining that the plaintiff agencies did not have standing to bring the suit and dismissing the suit. 'Plaintiffs ask this Court to do something it should not and cannot do: issue a declaratory judgment pre-approving the acts of executive agencies absent a legally cognizable injury-in-fact,' Albright wrote in the Wednesday ruling. 'This Court is unable to identify a single instance in which a federal court has exercised jurisdiction over agencies seeking a pre-enforcement declaratory judgment approving their desired future course of conduct.' Albright further wrote that doing so 'could open a Pandora's Box of encouraging the Executive Branch to seek the Judiciary's blessing for every Executive Order prior to implementation.' The move is a blow to the Trump administration, which sought Albright's blessing in a bid to terminate a number of existing collective bargaining agreements signed with unions. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation's largest federal employee union, had been highly critical of Trump's move to end bargaining rights at the 18 agencies. Framed as a national security measure, the executive order from Trump sought to end unions rights at a wide range of agencies, including those not traditionally thought to have a national security role. A White House fact sheet at the time said the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 allowing government workers to unionize 'enables hostile Federal unions to obstruct agency management.' AFGE had condemned the action in an email to its members, saying the Trump administration was 'illegally strip[ping] collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal workers. 'Let's be clear. National security is not the reason for this action. This is retaliation because our union is standing up for AFGE members—and a warning to every union: fall in line, or else.'
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
The Business of Obedience—Trump's Blueprint for Authoritarian Capitalism
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Three days after comedian Stephen Colbert called Paramount's $16 million settlement with President Donald Trump "a big fat bribe," CBS canceled his top-rated late-night show. The timing wasn't coincidental, it was calculated, and it represents the most brazen example yet of how Trump has weaponized presidential power to extract what amounts to total capitulation from corporate America. Since his election victory, Trump has orchestrated the largest corporate shakedown in American history. Disney paid $15 million to settle a defamation case legal experts called frivolous. Meta handed over $25 million for suspending Trump's social media accounts after January 6. Paramount paid $16 million over routine interview editing. Most audaciously, Trump has extracted nearly $1 billion in "pro bono" commitments from nine major law firms through executive orders that stripped security clearances and threatened to destroy their businesses. President Donald Trump answers questions during a press conference on recent Supreme Court rulings in the briefing room at the White House on June 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump answers questions during a press conference on recent Supreme Court rulings in the briefing room at the White House on June 27, 2025, in Washington, pattern is unmistakable. Trump targets companies with government leverage points, demands payment, and punishes those who resist. When CBS executives needed Federal Communications Commission approval for their $8 billion merger with Skydance Media—run by the son of Trump ally Larry Ellison—they paid the president's demanded settlement. When Colbert publicly called it what it was, they silenced him permanently. This isn't capitalism. It's an oligarchy. The law firm shakedowns reveal the system's true mechanics. Trump issued executive orders against firms like Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie, citing their representation of his critics or participation in investigations against him. Faced with losing security clearances, federal contracts, and access to government buildings, these firms capitulated with shocking speed. Paul Weiss agreed to $40 million in "pro bono" work. Skadden, Arps pledged $100 million. Additional firms each committed $125 million apiece. These aren't valid contracts but coerced payments extracted under duress. Yet corporate executives have calculated time and again that paying Trump's tribute was cheaper than fighting. The international parallels are chilling. President Vladimir Putin perfected this model with Russian oligarchs, using tax investigations and regulatory pressure to force compliance and extract wealth. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seized businesses from perceived enemies in Turkey, forcing "donations" to state causes. Trump has simply refined the technique for American democracy, using executive orders and regulatory approval processes as leverage points. What makes Trump's approach particularly insidious is its veneer of legality. Unlike Putin's crude asset seizures, Trump's extortion operates through ostensibly voluntary settlements and pro bono commitments. Companies can claim they weren't technically forced to pay—they just faced continued harassment if they didn't. The payments flow to Trump's presidential library or favored causes, creating plausible deniability while enriching his political infrastructure. Corporate executives defend these payments as rational business decisions. They're wrong. By normalizing presidential extortion, they're destroying the rule of law that makes American capitalism possible. No business can operate successfully in a system where the president's personal whims determine regulatory outcomes and government access. The Colbert cancellation crystallizes the stakes. When a network cancels its most successful late-night host three days after he criticized their tribute payment to the president, the message is unmistakable: criticism of Trump will not be tolerated, regardless of ratings or revenue. CBS' transparently false claim that this was "purely financial" only emphasizes their capitulation's brazenness. Democratic senators are now investigating whether Skydance made additional commitments to Trump beyond the announced settlement. The Writers Guild has called for state prosecutors to examine potential bribery violations. But investigations move slowly, while Trump's extortion machine operates in real time. The business community's response will define whether America remains a democratic republic or becomes a kleptocracy where presidential favor determines corporate survival. Every payment normalizes the system. Every capitulation invites the next demand. Trump has made clear this is just the beginning. He's boasted about putting law firms to work negotiating trade deals and suggested expanding his corporate pressure campaign. Having successfully extracted $1 billion through extortion, why would he stop? Corporate America faces a choice: resist now, while democratic institutions still function, or accept permanent subordination to presidential whims. The cost of resistance keeps rising, but the cost of submission is democracy itself. The oligarchy has arrived. The only question is whether anyone will fight it. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
