Supreme Court seems to back letting parents opt kids out of LGBTQ stories
The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared poised to side with a group of religious parents seeking to pull their children from public school lessons with LGBTQ+-themed books — a significant expansion of the long-standing practice of allowing opt outs for reproductive health classes.
The lawsuit over story time and books with titles such as 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' and 'Love, Violet' is one of three major religious-rights cases on the Supreme Court docket this term.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
40 minutes ago
- UPI
Argentina's high court upholds former President Kirchner's conviction
Argentina's Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (pictured in 2013) must serve her six-year prison sentence for a corruption conviction. File Photo by Stefano Spaziani/UPI | License Photo June 10 (UPI) -- Former Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner must serve her six-year prison sentence for a corruption conviction, the nation's Supreme Court of Justice ruled on Tuesday. The three-judge court unanimously upheld Kirchner's 2022 corruption conviction and ruled she is banned from holding public office. The conviction arises from how awards for 51 public works projects were issued in what became the "Vialidad" trial. Kirchner, 72, received due process, and the "rulings issued by the lower courts were based on extensive evidence assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judgment and the penal code enacted by Congress," the judges wrote in Tuesday's verdict. She had argued that the trial arose from political persecution because she is an influential leader of the opposition to current Argentine President Javier Milei and his government. Kirchner was Argentina's president from 2007 to 2015. She also was Argentina's vice president from 2019 to 2023. She is a popular leftist politician and recently announced she intended to run for a seat during the Sept. 7 Buenos Aires Province legislative elections. If she were to run and win, the victory would have given Kirchner immunity against imprisonment over the four-year term as a provincial lawmaker. The Supreme Court's decision against her makes it impossible for Kirchner to seek any public office. "The republic works," Milei said in a translated statement made during his visit to Israel. "All the corrupt journalists, accomplices of politicians, have been exposed in their operetta about the alleged pact of impunity," Milei said. The Federal Oral Court 2 in December 2022 found Kirchner guilty of corruption, sentenced her to prison and imposed a lifetime disqualification from holding public office due to "fraudulent administration to the detriment of the state." She was allowed to stay out of prison while the Supreme Court deliberated the case. Kirchner similarly was charged with fraud in 2016 and was convicted in February 2021, which made her Argentina's first vice president to be convicted of a crime while still in office. She was accused of and convicted of directing 51 public works contracts to a company owned by Kirchner's friend and business associate, Lazaro Baez. The scheme also directed $1 billion to Baez, who is serving a 12-year sentence for a money-laundering conviction in 2021 and was sentenced to another six years in prison for charges arising from the case that resulted inKirchner's conviction.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Georgia Supreme Court rejects changes sought by Trump-aligned board ahead of 2024 election
Members of Georgia's State Election Board sit during a Sept. 23 meeting at the Georgia state capitol in Atlanta. Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder (file photo) The Georgia Supreme Court has permanently blocked four rules the State Election Board approved last fall, concluding Tuesday that members of the board exceeded their authority in attempting to implement rules that went beyond the scope of Georgia's election laws. A total of seven rules were approved by the Republican-led board ahead of the 2024 general election, with supporters claiming that the changes were necessary to ensure accuracy and restore public confidence in Georgia's election integrity. If enacted, the rules would have ordered poll workers to hand count all ballots cast on election day, made it easier for local election officials to delay certifying election results and required family members and caregivers to present a photo ID when dropping off absentee ballots on behalf of another voter, among other changes. Election officials and voting rights groups opposed the rules, arguing that last-minute changes could sow confusion and doubt into the election process, and that implementing the new rules would violate Georgia's election laws. Last October, the Georgia Republican Party and Republican National Committee filed an emergency motion urging the state Supreme Court to reinstate the rules ahead of the general election, but the court declined to expedite their appeal. In a 96-page opinion, Chief Justice Nels Peterson upheld most of the Fulton County Superior Court's ruling, declaring that the State Election Board 'can pass rules to implement and enforce the Election Code, but it cannot go beyond, change, or contradict' existing Georgia law. The October ruling from Judge Thomas A. Cox Jr. argued that the seven rules were 'illegal, unconstitutional and void,' and that the State Election Board had exceeded its authority by passing them. However, in a slight reversal of the lower court ruling, the state Supreme Court allowed a rule mandating video surveillance of ballot drop boxes to take effect, finding that the rule was consistent with current election laws. Two other rules that would have expanded mandatory poll-watching areas and required election workers to publicly post daily totals of early and absentee voters were sent back to the Fulton County Superior Court for further consideration. The State Election Board is tasked with writing rules to ensure that elections run smoothly and hearing complaints about alleged violations. The three most conservative members of the Republican-led board — Janice Johnston, former state Sen. Rick Jeffares and Janelle King — made national headlines last fall after approving seven election rules in spite of Attorney General Chris Carr's warnings that the changes likely would not stand up in court. Then-presidential candidate Donald Trump also praised King, Jeffares and Johnston during a campaign rally in Atlanta for supporting changes to election certification rules, calling them 'pit bulls' for 'victory.' State Election Board Chairman John Fervier did not respond to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's ruling. The ACLU of Georgia, which helped represent the plaintiffs, applauded Tuesday's ruling. 'This is a resounding affirmation of voters' rights,' said Theresa Lee, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Voting Rights Project. 'The court recognized what we've argued all along — that this rule was unlawful and entirely unnecessary. Today's decision safeguards not just the letter of Georgia election law, but the democratic principle that every vote must be counted accurately and without interference.' Eternal Vigilance Action, a conservative election advocacy organization that sued the State Election Board over the rule changes, also celebrated the ruling. 'This ruling makes clear: the legislative power belongs to the General Assembly, not executive agencies operating without proper constraints,' Eternal Vigilance Action founder and former Republican state Rep. Scot Turner said in a statement. As new election laws passed in 2024 begin to take effect, including a ban on the use of QR codes to tabulate ballots, the board will likely continue to draft rules to guide local election officials tasked with implementing the changes. However, this year the board is workshopping changes to the rulemaking process in the hopes of avoiding a repeat of the chaos that defined the 2024 election cycle. During a May meeting, state election board members discussed the possibility of forming a rules committee with election directors, legislators, Georgia residents, and election law attorneys. Rules would be vetted by the committee before being presented to the full board. Senior reporter Stanley Dunlap contributed to this report. s25a0362 SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Kansas commission nominates two judges, private attorney for vacancy on Supreme Court
A nonpartisan nominating committee recommended Gov. Laura Kelly choose from among three nominees to fill a vacancy on the Kansas Supreme Court. Justice Evelyn Wilson is retiring July 4. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — A state judicial nominating commission unanimously recommended Tuesday that Gov. Laura Kelly choose from among two eastern Kansas district court judges and a soft-spoken attorney in private practice to fill an impending vacancy on the Kansas Supreme Court. The nonpartisan commission completed two days of interviews with 15 applicants before several rounds of voting narrowed the list to Douglas County District Court Judge Amy Hanley, Johnson County District Court Judge Christopher Jayaram and Leawood attorney Larkin Walsh. It would be the Democratic governor's fourth appointment to state's seven-justice Supreme Court. Justice Evelyn Wilson, who was diagnosed with the progressive neurodegenerative condition known as Lou Gehrig's disease, plans to retire July 4. She was appointed by Kelly in 2019, but took the oath in 2020. 'We had very good candidates, and that's important,' said Gloria Flentje, chairperson of the merit-selection commission. 'I hope that every time in the future it will be a hard decision because there are good candidates who want to be on the Kansas Supreme Court.' Hanley, who was appointed to the district court in 2016 by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, was among top vote-getters in each of the rounds conducted by the commission. Before joining the bench, she argued 20 times before the state Supreme Court or Kansas Court of Appeals. She was a a special assistant U.S. attorney in Kansas and an assistant attorney general for Kansas. She earned a law degree at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. 'I believe litigation experience is crucial to this position,' said Hanley, of Lawrence. 'I believe strongly in precedent.' She said one of the biggest challenges before the state Supreme Court was to respond to the tarnished public image of courts and judges in general. 'Public perception is something I believe is best addressed through education,' she said. Walsh, senior counsel at Stueve Siegel Hanson and a 2004 graduate of the University of Kansas law school, clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Carlos Murguia and was a research attorney for state Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier. Walsh's legal practice centered on civil cases in state and federal courts. More recently, she worked on plaintiffs' rights in labor and employment cases. Retired Kansas Court of Appeals Judge Steve Leben described Walsh in a reference letter as someone with 'intellectual humility.' 'I found that to be so moving,' Walsh said. 'It really brings a tear to my eye that someone would describe me that way. I am not a self-promoter. This is not my scene, but I do think a critical attribute of being a judge is to maintain that sense that you don't have all the answers.' The Leawood resident said the obligation of a state justice would be to maintain fidelity to the law, conduct careful reviews of facts and examine issues in the way parties framed them. 'Ego doesn't play a huge role in that,' said Walsh, who suggested the same skill was important in forming consensus among justices. 'Being the loudest or being the most inflexible or being the most aggressive is never the most effective.' Jayaram, who was appointed a district court judge in Johnson County by Kelly in 2021, said his 20-year legal career before that point focused on business litigation and health care matters. He was an attorney at Horn Aylward & Bandy and earned a law degree at Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. He said the text of the Kansas Constitution ought to be reviewed from a pragmatic standpoint without losing connection to actual words contained in the document. 'I don't think that you should overlook original words that are there,' said Jayaram, of Lenexa. He was questioned by the commission about how judges or justices ought to to handle personal political views when deciding cases. 'My job as a district court judge is really to not pay attention to what's popular and not popular,' Jayaram said. 'I'm not a political animal.' The issue holds relevance given some district court judges in Kansas — not Johnson County — were elected by popular vote rather than appointed by a governor. In addition, the August 2026 ballot in Kansas will include a proposed amendment to the constitution requiring election of Supreme Court justices. On the commission's fifth ballot, Jayaram edged out on a vote of 5-4 Robert Wonnell, who also served as a judge in the Johnson County District Court. The commission conducted the one-on-one runoff to determine the third finalist after Jayaram and Wonnel tied on the fourth ballot.
