Supreme Court weighs parents' objections to LGBTQ content in elementary schools
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday considers the latest dispute that pits religious rights against LGBTQ rights as the justices weigh parents' objections over books made available in a school district's elementary schools that feature stories about gay and transgender characters.
At issue are books included in the English language arts curriculum in Montgomery County, Maryland. The dispute arose in 2022 after the school board in Montgomery County, a large and diverse jurisdiction just outside Washington, decided it wanted more storybooks reflecting LGBTQ stories to better reflect the people who live there.
One book, "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," features a gay character who is getting married. Another, called "Born Ready," is about a transgender child who wants to identify as a boy.
Some parents objected on religious grounds under the Constitution's First Amendment, saying their children should be able to opt out of any exposure to the content.
The lead plaintiffs are Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat — a Muslim couple who have a son in elementary school. Other plaintiffs are members of the Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox churches.
They are not challenging the curriculum itself, just the lack of an opt-out.
A federal judge and the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the school board.
The Supreme Court will determine whether the school board policy burdens religious rights. The justices could then determine whether that burden violates the Constitution, or they could send the case back to lower courts to make that determination.
The parents, represented by the religious liberties group Becket, say that under Supreme Court precedent they have a right to opt out of any instruction that would interfere with their children's religious development.
The school board is 'compelling instruction designed to indoctrinate petitioners' children against their religious beliefs,' the parents' lawyers wrote.
The parents have the backing of the Trump administration.
Lawyers for the school board said in court papers that there is no attempt to coerce children and that there was an attempt to allow an opt-out "until doing so became unworkably disruptive."
The lawyers wrote that the court record is "devoid of evidence that petitioners or their children are compelled or pressured to modify their religious beliefs or practice."
The school board also asserts that although the books are in classrooms and available for children to pick up, teachers are not required to use them in class.
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that often backs religious rights, including in cases involving conflicting arguments made by LGBTQ rights advocates. In 2023, for example, the court ruled in favor of a Christian web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings.
The court is hearing another major religious case next week when it considers whether to approve the country's first public religious charter school.
In its next term, which starts in October, the court will consider a challenge to state laws that ban "conversion therapy" aimed at young people questioning their sexual orientations or gender identities.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
SNP opposition to new nuclear power stations ‘makes no sense', says Miliband
Scotland will not get a 'golden age of nuclear' while the SNP holds firm in its opposition to new nuclear power stations, Ed Miliband has said. The Energy Secretary said Holyrood's position 'makes no sense', as Labour MP Gregor Poynton claimed the policy had cost workers and taxpayers north of the border 'billions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-skilled jobs'. SNP MP Kirsty Blackman described the UK Government's new £14.2 billion investment into Sizewell C in Suffolk as a 'splurge', when she pressed Mr Miliband on whether the Government will back the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. Mr Miliband said the Sizewell development along East Anglia's North Sea coastline will 'power the equivalent of around six million homes with clean homegrown energy for 60 years, and it will be a jobs and growth engine for Britain, supporting 10,000 jobs in the peak construction and creating 1,500 apprenticeships'. It is one of several nuclear projects which the Government has backed, which also include a prototype fusion plant at West Burton, Nottinghamshire, and a partnership between Rolls-Royce and Great British Energy – Nuclear to rollout small modular reactors. Mr Poynton, the MP for Livingston, told the Commons: 'Scotland was once a pioneer in nuclear energy and should be again, but due to the SNP Scottish Government's outdated, backward, quite frankly bizarre opposition to nuclear energy, turning away billions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-skilled jobs. 'So, does the Secretary of State agree with me this is yet another way the SNP Scottish Government has lost their way?' Mr Miliband replied that Mr Poynton was 'so right', and added: 'People in Scotland will be looking at these announcements and saying, 'well why isn't it us that are benefitting from this? Why are we not even in the race?'' The Scottish Government, led by SNP First Minister John Swinney, has a policy of opposing the building of new nuclear power stations. Lillian Jones, the Labour MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, criticised the position as an 'ideological block on nuclear power, blocking billions in investment, blocking thousands of well-paid, secure Scottish jobs, and blocking growth'. In his response, Mr Miliband said: 'We can announce a golden age of nuclear with our investments but not in Scotland, because of the position of the SNP Government. 'It makes no sense.' Aberdeen North MP Ms Blackman had earlier said: 'This £14 billion splurge on English nuclear power plants comes on top of £22 billion for English carbon capture and storage, while there's nothing for Scotland's Acorn project. 'With Grangemouth (oil refinery) allowed to close, with a fiscal regime that is ruining north-east energy jobs, this latest announcement shows that Scotland isn't just an afterthought, it isn't a thought at all. 'If nearly £40 billion can be found for English energy projects, why is it that money is never found for Scotland's carbon capture project?' Mr Miliband replied: 'Well look, I think maybe there is an SNP change in position coming. If she wants to have a conversation about Scottish nuclear power stations, then absolutely. 'We're in favour of the Acorn project and we'll be saying more about this in the coming weeks. 'But let me just say to her – on nuclear power, they've really got to think again. 'They are absolutely sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to this. This is about jobs, it's about investment, it's about clean energy, they should really rethink.' In an earlier statement, Mr Miliband said: 'The Government is taking decisive steps today to usher in a new golden age of nuclear for Britain.' He added: 'For too long, our country has not made the crucial energy – or indeed other infrastructure investments – we need. A short-sighted failure to invest for which the British people have paid the price in lower living standards, insecurity and declining public services. 'This week's announcements symbolise a decisive change in approach, to invest in the future – the right choice for energy security, the right choice for jobs, the right choice for climate and our children and grandchildren, the right choice for Britain, investment, not decline. 'This Government has made its choice.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
California files lawsuit over Trump's ‘unlawful' deployment of national guard
California on Monday filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing the US president of 'unlawfully' federalizing the state's national guard to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles. Donald Trump's extraordinary deployment of troops to Los Angeles exceeds federal authority and violates the 10th amendment in an 'unprecedented usurpation' of state powers, according to the court filing. 'The Governor of the State of California and the State of California bring this action to protect the State against the illegal actions of the President, Secretary of Defense, and Department of Defense to deploy members of the California National Guard, without lawful authority, and in violation of the Constitution,' the complaint states. Previewing the suitearlier on Monday, the attorney general, Rob Bonta, said the move 'trampled' the state's sovereignty, overriding objections by the governor, Gavin Newsom, and going 'against the wishes of law enforcement on the ground'. Bonta said the legal action will ask the court to declare Trump's deployment of the guard unlawful and will seek a restraining order to halt the use of its troops to manage the protests. 'We don't take lightly to the president abusing his authority and unlawfully mobilizing California national guard troops,' the attorney general said during a virtual news conference on Monday. The announcement came hours before the US military said it was activating a battalion of 700 marines to Los Angeles to protect federal property and personnel. On Monday evening, Newsom said he had been informed that Trump was deploying an additional 2,000 national guard troops to the city. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly did not address specifics of the lawsuit, saying in a statement that California should 'prosecute the anti-Ice rioters' and accusing the governor of being 'more focused on saving face than protecting law enforcement and holding criminals accountable'. 'As the president said, Newsom should thank him for restoring law and order,' Kelly said. Democratic officials have argued that local law enforcement agencies had been adequately managing the protests, which began on Friday in response to a series of immigration enforcement operations across the LA area. 'This was not inevitable,' Bonta said, arguing that the demonstrations had largely dissipated by the time Trump, on Saturday, announced his plans to assert federal control over at least 2,000 national guard troops for at least 60 days, which Bonta said inflamed the situation. On Sunday, roughly 300 California national guard troops arrived in Los Angeles, prompting an outpouring of anger and fear among residents. Trump's call-up order 'skipped over multiple rational, common sense, strategic steps that should have been deployed to quell unrest and prevent escalation', he said. Newsom has accused Trump of intentionally sowing chaos, claiming Trump 'wants a civil war on the streets' and appealing for protesters not to give the administration the spectacle of violence it is hoping to stoke. 'This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,' Newsom said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. 'Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach. This is beyond incompetence – this is him intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities, and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' On Sunday, Newsom formally requested that Trump rescind his order and return command of the guard to his office. In a letter to the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, the governor's legal affairs secretary, David Sapp, argued there was 'currently no need' for such intervention by the federal government and that local law enforcement was capable of 'safeguarding public safety'. In the court filing, California alleges that Hegseth acted 'unlawfully' by circumventing the governor when he ordered the national guard into federal service. 'Trump and Hegseth jumped from zero to 60,' Bonta said. 'Bypassing law enforcement expertise and evaluation, they threw caution to the wind and sidelined strategy in an unnecessary and inflammatory escalation that only further spurred unrest.' In a rhetorical back and forth between Newsom and Trump, longtime political foes who clashed repeatedly during Trump's first administration, Trump said he endorsed a threat by his 'border czar' Tom Homan to arrest Democratic leaders in California if they impeded law enforcement, including Newsom. 'Gavin likes the publicity but I think it would be a great thing,' Trump told reporters on Monday. Related: Los Angeles faces fourth day of protests as Trump deploys 2,000 national guard Newsom responded to the taunt on X, formerly Twitter, calling Trump's support for the arrest of a sitting governor 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism'. The Trump administration has said that the immigration protests in Los Angeles amount to a 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the United States government. The order does not invoke the Insurrection Act, the 1807 law that allows the president to deploy US soldiers to police streets during times of rebellion or unrest. Instead, it cites a rarely used section of federal law, known as Title 10, that allows the president to federalize national guard units in circumstances where there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'. 'There was no risk of rebellion, no threat of foreign invasion, no inability for the federal government to enforce federal laws,' Bonta said. He told reporters his office had studied the Insurrection Act and was prepared to respond should Trump later invoke it as a legal authority to deploy the US military. 'We're prepared for all of it,' he said. The statute has been invoked only once in modern history, Bonta noted, in 1970, when president Richard Nixon mobilized the nationalguard to deliver the mail during a strike by the postal service. The last time a president activated the national guard without a request from the state's governor was in 1965, when president Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. In 1992, George HW Bush sent troops to LA to calm widespread civil unrest following the acquittal of four white police officers for brutally beating Black motorist Rodney King. But in that case both the California governor and the mayor of Los Angeles requested the federal intervention.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ali Velshi: Have Americans grown numb? Trump's new travel ban met with muted reaction
This is an adapted excerpt from the June 8 episode of 'Velshi.' On Monday, the Trump administration's travel ban on nationals from 12 countries — almost all in Africa and Asia — went into effect. Last week, Donald Trump announced full bans would be issued on Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. He also announced partial restrictions on nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The White House's official argument is that the countries on this list, as determined by the secretary of state, do not adequately provide information to the U.S. for screening and vetting visa applicants. In a prerecorded video address discussing the order, Trump cited the firebombing attack in Boulder, Colorado, at an event honoring hostages taken by Hamas in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack. An Egyptian national has been charged in the firebombing, but Egypt is not included on the list of countries under the new restrictions. Mark Hetfield, president of a refugee resettlement agency, told The Washington Post there was a commonality between the countries included in the order. 'They're travel bans from countries that obviously don't respect human rights and don't respect the rule of law and have foreign relations issues with the United States,' Hetfield said. 'But those are exactly the kinds of countries that produce the refugees and, in particular, produce refugees that the United States would have an interest in resettling.' You may recall that in Trump's first term, he restricted travel from a group of mostly majority-Muslim countries: Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. That 2017 ban typified Trump's first term. It was met with outrage and immediate protest, with activists, immigration lawyers and citizens alike camping out in airports to decry the order. It also typified Trump's first term in its sloppiness. The order was immediately rejected by a court, rewritten, rejected again, and rewritten a third time. When it reached the Supreme Court in 2018, the Court ruled 5 to 4 that the president did have authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict the entry of people from countries that do not share adequate vetting information or could otherwise pose a national security risk. With this new ban, the Trump administration appears to have learned from that first-term experience and adapted its approach. The new order references the very same clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which reads: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may … suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.' Back in 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts said this language 'exudes deference to the President in every clause.' Perhaps Trump's first travel ban faded from public consciousness, but it was the law of the land until it was repealed by his successor, Joe Biden, in 2021. And the legal world's perception is that this latest ban is built to survive a legal battle as well. Trump's second term has been replete with lessons he learned from the first: He spent four years out of office, stewing on plans to wield the power he lost in 2020, and he came back into office armed with a 900-page playbook to bend the government to his whims and many executive orders already written, ready for him to sign. In the public's reaction to Trump's second ban, we see another difference: It wasn't met with the same outcry as his first. Although Americans are protesting the president's policies at Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities across the country, no spontaneous protests against the travel bans have broken out in airports like last time (at least not so far). It's apparent even in the media: Trump made the announcement Wednesday night, and by Thursday afternoon, he and Musk were in their spat, which took up all the oxygen in the news cycle. As Adam Serwer argued in a recent piece for The Atlantic, this story is evidence that Americans have grown numb. 'The number of disastrous things the administration is doing makes prioritizing difficult for its opponents,' Serwer wrote. 'But there is also the reality that Trumpism is a kind of authoritarian autoimmune disease, one that has been ravaging the American body politic for so long that there are fewer small-d democratic antibodies left to fight it off.' This article was originally published on
