Supreme Court conservatives question elementary school policy denying opt-outs for LGBTQ+ books
The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday signaled it will require schools to provide opt-outs for parents who have objections to LGBTQ+ books read in elementary schools, an outcome that would continue the court's years-long push to expand religious rights.
During a feisty oral argument in a high-profile case involving a suburban Washington, DC, school district, the court's conservatives appeared to be mostly aligned on the idea that the decision to decline opt-outs for books burdened the rights of religious parents.
'It has a clear moral message,' Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court's conservative wing, said during a spirited exchange with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
'It may be a good message,' Alito added. 'It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.'
The court's liberal justices repeatedly pressed the idea that simply exposing students to ideas could not possibly burden religion. A majority of the court said in a 2022 decision that mere exposure to ideas doesn't amount to a coercion of religious beliefs. But others on the court appeared to be open to a standard other than 'coercion' to find a religious burden.
'Looking at two men getting married – is that the religious objection?' Sotomayor pressed the attorney for the parents who challenged the books. 'The most they're doing is holding hands.'
But several of the key conservative justices in the middle of the court asked questions suggesting they are concerned about the approach taken by the Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland. After all, some of them noted, state law already requires its schools to opt students out of sex education if requested.
'As far as simply looking at something, looking at the image of Muhammad is a serious matter for someone who follows that religion, right?' Chief Justice John Roberts asked in a question geared at disputing the argument that looking at material can't burden religion.
At times the arguments seemed especially tense. At one point, Sotomayor attempted to interject as Alito was speaking.
'Can I finish?' Alito fired back.
As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue in the case. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary.
'You're not seeking to prohibit instruction in the classroom,' conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh stressed at one point. 'You're just seeking not to be forced to participate in that instruction.'
That argument – that it's easy for the schools to offer an opt-out option – has drawn sharp criticism from the schools and its allies. The schools said that an earlier effort to allow opt-outs was disruptive. And, they say, it might allow parents who object to opt out of a wide range of curriculum they find offense.
'Once we say something like what you're asking for us to say, it'll be like opt-outs for everyone,' said liberal Justice Elena Kagan.
Another book, 'Born Ready,' tells the story of Penelope, a character who likes skateboarding and wearing baggy jeans. When Penelope tells his mother that he is a boy, he is accepted. When Penelope's brother questions his gender identity, their mother hugs both children and whispers, 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.'
The school district told the court that the books are used like any other in the curriculum: Placed on shelves for students to find and available for teachers to incorporate into reading groups or read-alouds at their discretion. But the parents who object to the books said they are in active use.
The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the schools 2-1 last year, ruling that the record on how the books were being used was too scant at the early stage of litigation to determine whether the material burdened the religious rights of the parents.
This story is breaking and will be updated.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
44 minutes ago
Emissions fell when firms reported them—EPA may end rule
LEOPOLD, Ind. -- On the ceiling of Abbie Brockman's middle school English classroom in Perry County, the fluorescent lights are covered with images of a bright blue sky, a few clouds floating by. Outside, the real sky isn't always blue. Sometimes it's hazy, with pollution drifting from coal-fired power plants in this part of southwest Indiana. Knowing exactly how much, and what it may be doing to the people who live there, is why Brockman got involved with a local environmental organization that's installing air and water quality monitors in her community. 'Industry and government is very, very, very powerful. It's more powerful than me. I'm just an English teacher,' Brockman said. But she wants to feel she can make a difference. In a way, Brockman's monitoring echoes the reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency began requiring from large polluters more than a decade ago. Emissions from four coal-fired plants in southwest Indiana have dropped 60% since 2010, when the rule took effect. That rule is now on the chopping block, one of many that President Donald Trump's EPA argues is costly and burdensome for industry. But experts say dropping the requirement risks a big increase in emissions if companies are no longer publicly accountable for what they put in the air. And they say losing the data — at the same time the EPA is cutting air quality monitoring elsewhere — would make it tougher to fight climate change. At stake is the Greenhouse Gas Reporting program, a 2009 rule from President Barack Obama's administration that affects large carbon polluters like refineries, power plants, wells and landfills. In the years since, they've collectively reported a 20% drop in emissions, mostly driven by the closure of coal plants. And what happens at these big emitters makes a difference. Their declining emissions account for more than three-quarters of the overall, if modest, decline in all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions since 2010. The registry includes places not usually thought of as big polluters but that have notable greenhouse gas emissions, such as college campuses, breweries and cereal factories. Even Walt Disney World in Florida, where pollution dropped 62% since 2010, has to report along with nearly 10,600 other places. "We can't solve climate change without knowing how much pollution major facilities are emitting and how that's changing over time," said Jeremy Symons, a former EPA senior climate adviser now at Environmental Protection Network, an organization of ex-EPA officials that monitors environmental policies. The group provided calculations as a part of The Associated Press' analysis of impacts from proposed rule rollbacks. Symons said some companies would welcome the end of the registry because it would make it easier to pollute. It's not clear how much the registry itself has contributed to declining emissions. More targeted regulations on smokestack emissions, as well as coal being crowded out by cheaper and less polluting natural gas, are bigger factors. But the registry 'does put pressure on companies to ... document what they've done or at least to provide a baseline for what they've done,' said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson, who heads Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tally national carbon emissions yearly. Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator under Obama, said the registry makes clear how power plants are doing against each other, and that's an inducement to lower emissions. "It is money for those companies. It's costs. It's reputation. It's been, I think, a wonderful success story and I hope it continues.' The potential end of the reporting requirement comes as experts say much of the country's air goes unmonitored. Nelson Arley Roque, a Penn State professor who co-authored a study in April on these 'monitoring deserts,' said about 40% of U.S. lands are unmonitored. That often includes poor and rural neighborhoods. "The air matters to all of us, but apparently 50 million people can't know or will never know'' how bad the air is, Roque said. The EPA is also trying to claw back money that had been earmarked for air monitoring, part of the termination of grants that it has labeled as targeting diversity, equity and inclusion. That includes $500,000 that would have funded 40 air monitors in a low-income and minority community in the Charlotte, North Carolina, area. CleaneAIRE NC, a nonprofit that works to improve air quality across the state that was awarded the grant, is suing. 'It's not diversity, equity and inclusion. It's human rights,' said Daisha Wall, the group's community science program manager. 'We all deserve a right to clean air.' Research strongly links poor air quality to diseases like asthma and heart disease, with a slightly less established link to cancer. Near polluting industries, experts say what's often lacking is either enough data in specific locations or the will to investigate the health toll. Indiana says it 'maintains a robust statewide monitoring and assessment program for air, land and water,' but Brockman and others in this part of the state aren't satisfied. She and other members of local advocacy groups Southwestern Indiana Citizens for Quality of Life and Valley Watch install and maintain their own air and water quality monitors. It's a full-time job to keep the network of monitors up and running, fighting spotty Wi-Fi and connectivity issues. Fighting industry is a sensitive subject, Brockman added. Many families depend on jobs at coal-fired power plants, and poverty is real. She keeps snacks in her desk for the kids who haven't eaten breakfast. 'But you also don't want to hear of another student that has a rare cancer,' she said. ___ ___
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Pride mattered when it was 'our' holiday. There's nothing to be proud of now.
Pride mattered when it was 'our' holiday. There's nothing to be proud of now. | Your Turn Do you think it's important to have a Pride Month? Are you concerned the Trump administration may try to further infringe upon the rights of LGBTQ+ people? Here's what you said. You've likely heard the phrase, "Pride started as a riot." And while it's true that pride as we know it grew out of the Stonewall Uprising of June 1969 – the first pride parade took place one year later on June 28, 1970, with protest marches occurring in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles – LGBTQ+ history is still unfolding today. Did you know it was still illegal to be gay as recently as 22 years ago? In 2003, the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas decriminalized same-sex sexual conduct, ruling state sodomy laws as unconstitutional. And it wasn't until 10 years ago, in 2015, that full marriage equality arrived with the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. And it wasn't until 2020 – five years ago – that the Supreme Court ruled protections against workplace discrimination extended to sexual orientation and gender identity. Under President Donald Trump's second administration, LGBTQ+ rights are back in the spotlight as he issues executive orders banning transgender military servicemembers and rescinding funding from educational institutions that allow trans athletes to compete in sports. So far in 2025, more than 500 bills targeting the LGBTQ+ community have been introduced across America. As Pride Month 2025 gets underway across the country (albeit with fewer corporate sponsors), we asked what pride means to you – not just the parades, protests and community, but also your feelings, fears and hopes – and whether it can continue to exist in its current form. Here's what readers told us. Share your take: Republicans want massive cuts to Medicaid. What do you want? Tell us. | Opinion Forum I'm saddened by what pride ‒ and our country ‒ has become Pride Month was extraordinarily significant to me when it was "our" holiday, until about 15-20 years ago. Since then, it has become a politically divisive public spectacle that is nothing to be proud of. All the corporate trucks and vans with no apparent association to our community, driving slowly down the parade route without even decorating their vehicles, are extravagantly insulting. Recently, there have been more gawking straight families in attendance than LGBTQ+ people. I'm not at all disappointed with the businesses that are no longer participating in pride events. Their duplicitous "support" only benefited themselves. Our pride is not a commodity, despite the ignorance of younger LGBTQ+ people. When Pride Month was new in Houston, every business in the Montrose neighborhood closed for the duration of the parade, even the bars. Andy Mills and Ray Hill assumed risks to their lives to direct us participants in the parade down Westheimer Road. They tolerated police raids, arrests and physical abuse by the cops for living authentic lives. They protected marchers from the Ku Klux Klan that threatened us about 40 years ago. Young community members are completely unaware that this is not a frivolous observation. My wife and I have been exclusively committed for 33 years. In June 2015, the Supreme Court declared our marriage rights and we married the following week. We're in our 70s now and poor. But we're so fearful of President Donald Trump annulling our union that we're selling everything we own to move to Mexico. We have made two frugal trips and now have official Mexican residency cards. We anticipate leaving for good on June 8, the day after my best friend's funeral. We hope never, ever to return. To the younger LGBTQ+ community: Please educate yourselves. There are only a few of us who were there in the beginning, but we'll be happy to share our information. And the fact is that we feel thoroughly disrespected by you. — Jazz Paz, 73, Houston Pride is so much more than rainbows and parades to me Without a doubt, Pride Month is important, and it means so much more to me than rainbows and parades. From an outside view, it's easy to look at pride as a corporate-centered, rehearsed display of disingenuous virtue signaling. To those of us in the community, that skin-deep assumption is lobbed at us every June. Pride to me, however, means acceptance. It means reflecting on the endless strife for equality ‒ in marriage, in employment, in housing and in spousal rights. We're celebrating how far we've come, but we're also rallying for the future and the challenges our community still faces. Corporations and their involvement in Pride Month have long been controversial. Many in our community welcome the awareness, visibility and donations to LGBTQ+ causes. However, others see corporate sponsoring as a market scheme to cash out on our community and its allies by slapping some rainbows on merchandise for a month or making a cliché social media post advertising their support every first of June. Your Turn: I think the WNBA's popularity is here to stay – thanks to Caitlin Clark | Opinion Forum Indeed, the reversal of several companies this year, deciding that pride is no longer profitable to them during this political climate, has shown just how shallow their sponsorship was all along. When they were given the chance to prove that those who were always skeptical of corporate support of pride were wrong, they didn't hesitate to bend the knee to bigotry and prove the pessimists correct. The very crux of Trump's second presidency has been to target minorities, whether it be us, racial minorities, the undocumented and many more. I think it's important to point out that just six years ago, Trump was declaring his support for Pride Month on Twitter during his first term. His administration's actions, back then, proved to be the opposite of supporting the LGBTQ+ community, but he still had the gall to at least pretend he cared about us. Now, Trump wouldn't dare even mention Pride Month in a positive light because the fringe conservative wing he aligns himself with has grown so hateful and obsessed with LGBTQ+ issues that showing any shred of kindness to us would be worthy of excommunication to them. I would be dumbfounded if the federal government recognized Pride Month during this administration. Cruelty, brashness and classlessness highlight the priorities of this administration. None of these are compatible with pride or what we stand for, so it's easy to see why it's an absolute no for them. Marginalization and apathy are all that Trump and his allies know. My questions to the older LGBTQ+ generations would be: How have you remained so resilient? — Jacob Vertrees, 21, Phoenix My partner and I won't be at Pride Month. I fear for those who will. I used to think pride was important, but I think that pride, and a lot of other gay events, have been overshadowed by the prevalence and acceptance of drugs in the LGBTQ+ community. Although we have in the past, my partner and I won't be attending this year, specifically because of this. I think sponsors are pulling out because they don't want to be associated with what it has become. It took an alarming amount of time for permits to be approved for WorldPride in Washington, DC. I am expecting them to arrest people who congregate on federal lands. — David Thibodeau, 64, Washington, DC This is just my 2nd Pride Month out. It feels like finally exhaling. I think Pride Month's importance cannot be overstated enough. To me, pride means visibility, courage and, most important, joy. It's the exhale of built-up closeted anxiety and fears finally being able to be truly released among a community of those who not only accept you for who you are, but also celebrate it. This will be just my second Pride Month where I'm publicly out, and my grandfather is a gay man who had to live in shame and had the courage to finally come out in the 1980s while his friends died suddenly of AIDS. Pride is also about honoring those who came before us, who paved the way for our freedom. I absolutely think corporations and businesses have a role in pride. With such a large, influential monetary impact on society amid a backdrop of volatile and dangerous political rhetoric, corporations have a responsibility and moral obligation to support heritage events like Pride Month. Corporations can make a very powerful impact, which can not only change the lives of those who are struggling but also help boost their own success and productivity. Diversity makes things run smoothly and work better. Trump is not shy about his direct homophobia, transphobia and attacks against the LGBTQ+ community. His putrid policies, hateful rhetoric and unconstitutional directives purport baseless attacks on the community that do not affect him in any way. If corporations, organizations, communities, lawmakers and individuals do not stand up, mobilize and advocate, we could see our country fall back in time where something as simple as being yourself is punishable by law. With right-wing extremists at the helm, there is no telling what their next move will be. Would it be surprising? Not at all. But we have the responsibility ‒ as queer people, and those who are allies ‒ to stand up and not allow that to happen. Shunning our pride federally will not and cannot stop celebrations; that's how they win. How can we rise together to combat this hatred? — Gillian Gurney, 26, New York City I'm an educator. I see how meaningful pride is to marginalized students. As an educator, I realize that marginalized students face daily criticism from false stereotypes, misguided religious zealots and even their parents. Pride Month is not some "liberal" plot. It is a month to recognize marginalized citizens in our society. If we can have Mother's Day, Veterans Day and other events to recognize specific groups, it seems the only ones who dispute helping subgroups are the intolerant haters. Yes to helping anyone in the United States who needs help, not ignoring or hating them. Since the war on diversity, equity and inclusion began with Project 2025's hope of making America more white-male centric, many American citizens have rejected this arrogant, racist theory. Businesses like Target and Tesla are losing financially and in public opinion. The Trump administration's goal is to keep the American culture wars as inflamed as possible to deflect from gross mismanagement by Elon Musk and the Republican budget cuts to health care that will decimate senior citizens who rely on Social Security and Medicare for their survival. Sounds a bit like North Korea, does it not? Why does a mostly white male administration need to target specific communities? Trump is the least Christian president ever; sleeping with a porn star while your wife is pregnant is not found in the New Testament. — Neil Reilly, 57, Sacramento, California
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
As Trump's deportation push gains momentum, Canada proposes tougher border restrictions
Advertisement 'It's deeply discouraging and, frankly, scary to see the government going down this path,' Sande said. Carney's move comes in the wake of a recent US Supreme Court decision that Canada, and French-speaking Quebec in particular, has long been an attractive choice for members of Greater Boston's large Haitian community. And after the high court cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport them, many were considering relocating to Canada, according to Jeff Thielman, chief executive of the International Institute of New England. The actions on either side of the border leave them and other immigrants in a quandary. 'If our country isn't going to be welcoming, which is a travesty, then maybe Canada can be welcoming. And if Canada says no to them, then what do we do?' said Thielman, whose organization serves refugees and immigrants in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. 'Seriously, there's no place for them to go — and it's not fair to them.' Advertisement Since taking office, Trump has sought to end a variety of programs enabling citizens of certain countries to take refuge in the U.S., but lower courts have slowed his efforts. In May, the Supreme Court In a more recent decision, the Supreme Court Canadian officials have worried since Trump's election last year that the looming termination of these programs could lead to an influx of refugees to the north. During the first Trump administration, Advertisement A migrant was searched by a police officer after arriving at the Roxham Road border crossing in Roxham, Quebec, Canada, on March 2, 2023. SEBASTIEN ST-JEAN/AFP via Getty Images So far, evidence of a new surge in northbound migration is mixed. Nationwide, asylum applications processed by Canada so far this year are half those of last year, 14,557 through the first five months of 2024, compared to 31,244 in the same period in 2024, according to the Canada Border Services Agency. But at the Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle port of entry, which connects Interstate 87 near the New York-Vermont border with Autoroute 15 in Quebec, officials clocked a dramatic uptick in activity this spring, doubling month-over-month in March and April. Year to date, asylum claims at that crossing — which this year account for more than one-third of such claims in Canada — are up by about 60 percent. The agency declined to provide similar figures for other ports of entry. Rebecca Purdy, a spokesperson for the Canada Border Services Agency, said the increase in claims at that location has not affected the crossing's operations. She said the government has plans in place to lease additional space in the area to process refugee claims if needed. The most common countries of origin of those claiming asylum at ports of entry this year are Haiti, Venezuela, and the U.S., according to Purdy. Canada's previous prime minister, Justin Trudeau, 'What Justin Trudeau said in 2017 really backfired against him,' Béland said. Pandemic-fueled inflation and a growing housing crisis as many refugees were coming to Canada 'led to a backlash,' he said. Advertisement So when Carney, a member of Trudeau's Liberal Party, campaigned to succeed him this spring, he tacked to the center on immigration. And on Tuesday, when Carney's government introduced its first bill, the message was clear. A truck crossed the Peace Bridge at the Canada-US border in Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada, on April 2. Laura Proctor/Bloomberg 'A strong border is essential to our national security, to foster safe communities and support our economy,' said Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree at a press conference in Ottawa. The 'It tries to kill at least two birds with one stone,' Béland said. Asked at Tuesday's press conference whether the bill was an attempt to 'appease' the Trump administration, Anandasangaree said he expected it to 'strengthen the relationship with the United States.' 'There are a number of elements in the bill that have been irritants for the U.S., so we are addressing some of those issues,' he said. 'But it's not exclusively about the United States.' Human rights activists have expressed alarm at provisions that would make it harder to seek refuge in Canada. It would prevent those who have been in the country for more than a year to claim asylum, and it would close a loophole Advertisement 'It's this massive expansion of state power that can be used for any purpose,' said Syed Hussan, a spokesperson for Canada's Migrant Rights Network. The Refugee Centre, a Montreal-based nonprofit serving new Canadians, is quick to feel the effects of immigration policy changes on either side of the border. Its clients are most commonly from Haiti and Venezuela at the moment, according to spokesperson Alina Murad, but it hasn't detected a surge in asylum-seekers relocating from the United States. Murad says she understands that citizens of Canada and the U.S. alike 'are hurting and feeling the effects' of inflation and the housing crunch. But she believes people from elsewhere 'are being used as scapegoats.' 'It's not fair to blame refugees and immigrants for bad policies in other areas,' she said. 'These are people who are just trying to get to safety.'
