logo
Supreme Court sides with parents seeking opt-outs from LGBTQ books in schools

Supreme Court sides with parents seeking opt-outs from LGBTQ books in schools

Yahoo5 hours ago

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines Friday ruled in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Md., who sought to opt out their children from instruction that uses books with LGBTQ themes.
It hands another win to religious rights advocates, who have regularly earned the backing of the high court's conservative majority in a series of high-profile cases.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the six Republican-appointed justices, found the lack of an opt-out option likely substantially burdens parents' constitutional right to freely exercise their religion.
The decision sends the case back to a lower court for a final decision on whether that requires the county to provide an opt-out. In the meantime, Alito said the school district must notify parents in advance and enable them to have their children removed from the instruction.
'In the absence of an injunction, the parents will continue to be put to a choice: either risk their child's exposure to burdensome instruction, or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services. As we have explained, that choice unconstitutionally burdens the parents' religious exercise,' Alito wrote.
The court's three Democratic-appointed justices dissented.
'The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools,' wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
'Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,' Sotomayor continued. 'The harm will not be borne by educators alone: Children will suffer too. Classroom disruptions and absences may well inflict long-lasting harm on students' learning and development.'
Check out in-depth Supreme Court coverage in The Gavel, a The Hill newsletter published weekly.
Located just across the border from Washington, D.C., Montgomery County runs one of the nation's largest and most diverse public school systems.
In fall 2022, the county began introducing books with gay and transgender characters in language arts curriculum in elementary schools. Initially, the county allowed opt-outs before rescinding the option as a flood of parents sought to do so on religious grounds.
A coalition comprising an organization formed to fight the policy, and a group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents sued.
The parents appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal district judge rejected their bid to require an opt-out option, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in a 2-1 vote.
The parents were represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which regularly brings religion cases before the high court.
They were backed by the Trump administration, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious groups, more than five dozen Republican members of Congress, 26 Republican state attorneys general and various conservative legal groups.
Montgomery County was backed by another coalition of religious groups, Democratic attorneys general from Washington, D.C., and 18 states, the American Civil Liberties Union and LGBTQ advocacy groups.
The case is one of several at the Supreme Court this term implicating religious rights.
The court deadlocked 4-4 on the bid to create the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school, leaving intact a lower ruling blocking the Oklahoma school's contract.
And the justices unanimously ruled Wisconsin must extend a religious tax exemption to the Catholic Charities Bureau, rejecting the state's argument that the bureau did not qualify for the carve-out because its operations were not primarily religious.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

GOP blocks Dems' efforts to restrict Trump's war powers after strikes on Iran nuke sites
GOP blocks Dems' efforts to restrict Trump's war powers after strikes on Iran nuke sites

New York Post

time29 minutes ago

  • New York Post

GOP blocks Dems' efforts to restrict Trump's war powers after strikes on Iran nuke sites

WASHINGTON — Democratic efforts in the Senate to prevent President Donald Trump from further escalating with Iran fell short Friday, with Republicans blocking a resolution that marked Congress' first attempt to reassert its war powers following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The resolution, authored by Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, aimed to affirm that Trump should seek authorization from Congress before launching more military action against Iran. Asked Friday if he would bomb Iranian nuclear sites again if he deemed necessary, Trump said, 'Sure, without question.' The measure was defeated in a 53-47 vote in the Republican-held Senate. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, joined Republicans in opposition, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote in favor. Republicans beat back a Democrat effort, led by Sen. Tim Kaine, to restrict Donald Trump's war powers. AP Most Republicans have said Iran posed an imminent threat that required decisive action from Trump, and they backed his decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend without seeking congressional approval. 'Of course, we can debate the scope and strategy of our military engagements,' said Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn. 'But we must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line.' Democrats cast doubt on that justification, arguing the president should have come to Congress first. They also said the president did not update them adequately, with Congress' first briefings taking place Thursday. 'The idea is this: We shouldn't send our sons and daughters into war unless there's a political consensus that this is a good idea, this is a national interest,' Kaine said in a Thursday interview with The Associated Press. The resolution, Kaine said, wasn't aimed at restricting the president's ability to defend against a threat, but that 'if it's offense, let's really make sure we're making the right decision.' In a statement following Friday's vote, Kaine said he was 'disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress' should be a part of a decision to go to war. Democrats' argument for backing the resolution centered on the War Powers Resolution, passed in the early 1970s, which requires the president 'in every possible instance' to 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.' Speaking on the Senate floor ahead of Friday's vote, Paul said he would back the resolution, saying that 'despite the tactical success of our strikes, they may end up proving to be a strategic failure.' 'It is unclear if this intervention will fully curtail Iran's nuclear aspirations,' said Paul. Trump is just the latest in a line of presidents to test the limits of the resolution — though he's done so at a time when he's often bristling at the nation's checks and balances. Trump said Friday he would again bomb Iranian nuclear sites if he deemed it necessary. AP Trump on Monday sent a letter to Congress — as required by the War Powers Resolution — that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were 'limited in scope and purpose' and 'designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.' But following classified briefings with top White House officials this week, some lawmakers remain skeptical about how imminent the threat truly was. 'There was no imminent threat to the United States,' said Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, after Friday's classified briefings. 'There's always an Iranian threat to the world. But, I have not seen anything to suggest that the threat from the Iranians was radically different last Saturday than it was two Saturdays ago,' Himes said. Despite Democratic skepticism, nearly all Republicans applauded Trump's decision to strike Iran. And for GOP senators, supporting the resolution would have meant rebuking the president at the same time they're working to pass his major legislative package.

Washington Post journalist busted by DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro for allegedly possessing child porn
Washington Post journalist busted by DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro for allegedly possessing child porn

New York Post

time32 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Washington Post journalist busted by DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro for allegedly possessing child porn

A Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post journalist was arrested and charged after authorities allegedly discovered child porn on his work computer, DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced Friday. Thomas Pham LeGro, a 48-year-old video editor at the news outlet, was taken into custody on Thursday after FBI agents raided his Washington, DC, home and discovered a folder on his work laptop which contained 11 videos depicting child sexual abuse material, according to Pirro's office. FBI agents also discovered 'fractured pieces of a hard drive in the hallway outside the room where LeGro's work laptop was found,' during the execution of the search warrant. Legro made his first appearance in District Court of Washington, DC, on Friday and has a detention hearing scheduled for next Wednesday. 3 LeGro was part of a team that won the Pulitzer Prize in 2017 for coverage of Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. Tom LeGro/LinkedIn The journalist, who has worked at the Washington Post for 18 years, faces a maximum of 20 years in prison if convicted. A heavily redacted FBI affidavit against LeGro claims the reporter was linked to multiple E-Gold accounts in 2005 and 2006. E-Gold was a digital payment service that ceased operations after the feds accused the company in 2007 of laundering money for child pornographers. The affidavit notes that the FBI received court approval to monitor LeGro's internet account in May. LeGro's worked in the Washington Post's sports department from 2000-2006 and then left to become a reporter and producer for 'PBS NewsHour' before returning to WaPo in 2013, according to his biography. 3 The charges were announced by Pirro on Friday. AFP via Getty Images 3 LeGro has worked at the Washington Post for 18 years. Christopher Sadowski As a member of WaPo's video department, he was part of a team of reporters that won a prestigious Pulitzer Prize in 2017 for coverage of former Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore. Moore threatened to sue the Washington Post that year after the outlet published allegations that he romantically pursued a 14-year-old girl when he was in his 30s, which he vehemently denied. A spokesperson for the Washington Post said Legro has been placed on leave. 'The Washington Post understands the severity of these allegations, and the employee has been placed on leave,' the outlet said in a statement.

High court ruling on injunctions could imperil many court orders blocking the Trump administration
High court ruling on injunctions could imperil many court orders blocking the Trump administration

Chicago Tribune

time33 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

High court ruling on injunctions could imperil many court orders blocking the Trump administration

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Friday limiting federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions threatens to upend numerous lawsuits that have led to orders blocking Trump administration policies. Between the start of the new administration and mid-May, judges issued roughly 40 nationwide injunctions against the White House on topics including federal funding, elections rules and diversity and equity considerations. Attorneys involved in some of those cases are vowing to keep fighting, noting the high court left open other legal paths that could have broad nationwide effect. Here's a look at some of the decisions that could be impacted: Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's order denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The high court's decision Friday came in a lawsuit over that order, but the justices left unclear whether the restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Opponents went back to court within hours of the opinion, using a legal path the court left open to file class-action lawsuits that could have nationwide effect. On June 13, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S. An executive order the Republican president issued in March sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. California was one of the plaintiffs in that suit. The office of the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in an email it was assessing the effect of Friday's Supreme Court decision on all of the state's litigation. A federal judge in California in April blocked the administration from cutting off funding for legal representation for unaccompanied migrant children. The administration has appealed. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco said there was 'no practical way' to limit the scope of the injunction by party or by geography. 'Indeed, as discussed with the Government's declarants at the preliminary injunction hearing, there exists only one contract for the provision of the subject funding, and it applies to direct legal services nationwide,' Martinez-Olguin wrote. Plaintiffs' attorney Adina Appelbaum, program director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said she didn't think the Supreme Court's decision would significantly affect her case. But she blasted it, saying the high court had 'turned its back on its role to protect the people,' including immigrants. A federal judge in February largely blocked sweeping executive orders that sought to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts it considers equity-related. An appeals court later put the decision on hold. Attorneys for the group Democracy Forward represented plaintiffs in the case. The group's president and CEO, Skye Perryman, said she was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it another barrier to seeking relief in court. But she also said it was limited and could keep at least some decisions blocking the Trump administration in place. A federal judge in February stopped the administration from withholding federal funds from health care facilities that provide gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19. Explaining his reasoning for a nationwide injunction, U.S. District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson in Maryland said a 'piecemeal approach is not appropriate in this case.' 'Significant confusion would result from preventing agencies from conditioning funding on certain medical institutions, while allowing conditional funding to persist as to other medical institutions,' he wrote. An appeal in the case was on hold as the Supreme Court considered similar issues about minors and transgender health care. The high court last week upheld a Tennessee law banning key health care treatments for transgender youth. Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., was one of the attorneys who secured Hurson's ruling. He said the plaintiffs' lawyers were still evaluating the possible impact of the Supreme Court's decision, but he believed the high court recognized that 'systematic, universal relief is sometimes appropriate.' In May, a judge in Rhode Island blocked an executive order that sought to dismantle federal agencies supporting libraries, museums, minority businesses and parties in labor disputes. The administration has appealed. Rhode Island was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The state's attorney general, Peter F. Neronha, said in a statement Friday he would 'continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans, all Americans, are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.'

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