logo
Supreme Court signals support for parents who object to LGBTQ books in Maryland school system

Supreme Court signals support for parents who object to LGBTQ books in Maryland school system

New York Post22-04-2025

The Supreme Court indicated Tuesday it would rule in favor of a group of parents who sued a suburban Maryland school board over its refusal to allow parents of elementary school children to opt out of classes with LGBTQ-themed storybooks.
Plaintiffs argue that the school system in Montgomery County, just outside Washington, DC, cannot require children to sit through lessons involving the books if their family has religious objections.
'The [school] board does not dispute that under its theory, it could compel instruction using pornography, and parents would have no rights,' argued Eric Baxter, an attorney for parent Tamer Mahmoud.
Advertisement
'The First Amendment demands more. Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters.'
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) approved certain LGBTQ-themed curriculum books in late 2022. Initially, MCPS allowed an opt-out for parents with religious concerns, but by March of 2023, it reversed course, citing concerns about absenteeism and administrative burdens.
4 Parents sued Montgomery County Public Schools over its decision to scrap the opt-out.
Courtesy of Grace Morrison
Advertisement
A group of parents from Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox faiths, sued the school district, arguing the lack of an opt-out system trampled upon their religious rights as parents.
Both a federal judge and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously backed the school board in denying a preliminary injunction sought by the parents. The 4th Circuit concluded the plaintiffs needed to show that their children were being coerced to act differently than their religious beliefs.
'We don't have to decide whether you get the opt-out,' conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett mused at one point. 'We just have to decide if the 4th Circuit accurately defined what a burden is.'
Later, Barrett expressed concerns that the LGBTQ-laced classroom instructions aren't merely trying to expose students to different ideas, but are about trying to impress upon students that 'this is the right view of the world' and 'how you should think about things.'
Advertisement
At times, some of the conservative justices sounded uneasy about the content of some of the books in question.
4 Supreme Court justices referenced some of the books in question during oral arguments.
Simon & Schuster
'That's the one where they were supposed to look for the leather and bondage things like that,' Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about the 'Pride Puppy' book for pre-K students, which was later removed from the curriculum by the board.
'Do you think it's fair to say that all that is done in 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' is to expose children to the fact that there are men who marry other men?' Justice Samuel Alito asked Baxter, before answering his own question.
Advertisement
'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with.'
MCPS attorney Alan Schoenfeld argued that the school system already provides parents with ample opportunity to provide input.
'The school board here is democratically elected,' he contended. 'The entire process of adopting this curriculum is open and transparent. These books are on review for 30 days before they're even made part of the curriculum. There's then a multi-level appeal process.
'There's plenty of opportunity for parental insight.'
4 Activists in the Christian and Muslim communities argued that the lessons violated their religious rights.
MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said at one point that he was 'a bit mystified, as a lifelong resident of the county, how it came to this.'
'The other Maryland counties have opt-outs for all sorts of things,' the justice added.
Schoenfeld explained that there had been 'dozens of students walking out' of classes and that schools were struggling to figure out the logistics of alternative spaces and supervision for them.
Advertisement
'They don't do it for all sorts of other opt-outs,' the attorney countered. 'There's a limited universe of things that students can opt out from.'
'The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum,' Alito rejoined. 'They're just saying, 'Look, we want out.' Why is that not feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?'
4 Protesters on both sides of the issue demonstrated outside of the Supreme Court.
FOX NEWS
Schoenfeld sought to impress upon the high court that schools across the country teach a variety of lessons that conflict with parents' beliefs.
Advertisement
'Children encounter real and fictional women who forego motherhood and work outside the home,' he said. 'Children read books valorizing our nation's veterans who fought in violent wars. Each of these things is deeply offensive to some people of faith.'
Liberal justices seemed particularly concerned about redefining the 'burden' definition.
'How do we make very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?' Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Baxter at one point.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stressed that parents 'can choose to put their kid elsewhere' and are not required to send their children to public schools if they disagree with what is being taught.
Advertisement
'I guess I'm struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with,' she admitted. 'You have a choice, you don't have to send your kids to that school.'
Jackson also listed a series of hypotheticals — such as a gay teacher talking to children about their spouse or transgender students — and got Baxter to admit that he probably would not support an opt-out in those scenarios.
Justice Elena Kagan suggested attorneys for the parents 'did not want to draw lines' on where an opt-out would not be honored.
Advertisement
'You're still not giving me anything other than if it's in a school and a sincere religious parent has an objection, that objection is always going to result in an opt-out, no matter what the instruction is like,' she vented.
The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor by the end of June.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Bob Costas calls out legacy press for paying ‘ransom' to Trump and pivoting to ‘MAGA media'
Bob Costas calls out legacy press for paying ‘ransom' to Trump and pivoting to ‘MAGA media'

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Bob Costas calls out legacy press for paying ‘ransom' to Trump and pivoting to ‘MAGA media'

Veteran sportscaster Bob Costas declared this week that the 'free press is under attack' while assailing mainstream media outlets for kowtowing to Donald Trump and paying the president a 'ransom,' claiming that 'these are ongoing assaults' to the First Amendment. During his speech at Monday night's Mirror Awards in New York City, where he received the Fred Dressler Leadership Award for making 'distinct, consistent and unique contributions to the public's understanding of the media,' Costas took the opportunity to call out ABC News for capitulating to the president. Shortly after Trump won the 2024 election, ABC's parent company Disney decided to settle the president's defamation lawsuit against the news network and anchor George Stephanopoulos for $15 million. Trump claimed that he was defamed when Stephanopoulos said in an interview that the president had been found liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll, when a jury instead found Trump liable for sexually abusing her. 'All they should've said was, 'George misspoke. The president, that paragon of virtue, was only found guilty of sexual assault, not rape. So we stand corrected.' They didn't have to pay a $15 million ransom,' the 12-time Olympic host declared. He also took issue with Shari Redstone, the chief shareholder of CBS News' parent company Paramount Global. With Redstone standing to make billions of dollars in a merger with Skydance Media, she has pushed the company to agree to settle Trump's lawsuit over a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, which legal experts have deemed frivolous and the news channel has said is 'completely without merit.' In recent months, 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens and CBS News chief Wendy McMahon – who both said they would not apologize for the interview – have resigned amid internal tensions over the pending settlement. The conglomerate's board has already offered Trump a $15 million settlement, which the president has rejected as he's reportedly demanding at least $25 million (plus $25 million in free airtime) along with an apology. 'And did Shari Redstone, because she wants to affect a merger that Trump's FCC can stand in the way of, did she have to besmirch and undercut the gold standard in our lifetime of broadcast journalism – 60 Minutes? Paying $20 million in ransom to Trump is just the cost of doing business when there are billions of dollars at stake,' Costas sighed. 'These are ongoing assaults on the basic idea of a free press.' Throughout the rest of his speech, which was captured on video by journalist Rachel Sklar, Costas bemoaned that the Trump administration was engaging in a full-fledged war against the media. 'The free press is under attack. Democracy as we know it is under attack,' he noted. At the same time, he scolded news organizations for seemingly bending the knee to the president and presenting 'both-sides' coverage in an effort to appease Trump and his supporters. 'But if the answer to that is MAGA media, if the answer to that is Donald Trump's view of the world, which is only through a prism of what benefits him, there are no higher ideals,' he stated. 'There are no principles at work other than what benefits him. I'll stay with where we are without correction if the correction is what Donald Trump represents.' Costas added that due to Trump having 'been normalized,' everything the president does or says forces 'responsible journalists' to 'have to pretend that there's always two sides to this,' prompting him to criticize CNN, a network he joined as a contributor in 2020. 'There really isn't two sides to much of what Donald Trump represents,' he said. 'And the idea that you have to find somebody who will not just defend Donald Trump but valorize it, even on CNN or wherever else, just in the name of being balanced – look, if someone is contending that the Earth is flat in order to appear objective, you are not required to say 'well, maybe it might be oblong.' No, it's not!' After observing that the president 'has absolutely no regard' for 'basic American principles and basic common decency', the legendary play-by-play announcer ended his remarks by relaying how fans of his have turned on him over his recent outspokenness on politics. 'And of course, when I did that, every good thing I did for 40 years was washed away,' he concluded. 'Now I suck. You know what? If that's what you think, and that's how you think, and you think it in defense of that guy, I wear that as a badge of honor.'

Hunter Biden drops ‘revenge porn' lawsuit against Fox News for second time over nude laptop photos
Hunter Biden drops ‘revenge porn' lawsuit against Fox News for second time over nude laptop photos

New York Post

time13 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Hunter Biden drops ‘revenge porn' lawsuit against Fox News for second time over nude laptop photos

Hunter Biden once again dropped a lawsuit against Fox News that accused the network of using 'revenge porn' linked to his infamous laptop in its portrayal of the former president's son in a 2022 streaming series. The lawsuit, filed last October, accused Fox of violating New York's Civil Rights Law by broadcasting sexually explicit content of Biden in a six-part miniseries titled 'The Trial of Hunter Biden' — a fictional account of a courtroom proceeding that never took place. The series, aired on the Fox Nation platform, included material sourced from the contents of Biden's laptop — which became the subject of a series of investigative reports published by The Post ahead of the 2020 presidential election.. Advertisement 3 Hunter Biden has once again withdrawn a lawsuit against Fox News. CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images 'We are pleased to move on now that Hunter Biden has finally voluntarily withdrawn this meritless case, which proved to be nothing more than a politically motivated stunt,' a Fox News spokesperson said in a statement to The Post. Fox News is owned by Fox Corp — sister company to The Post's corporate parent News Corp. This was the second time Biden has initiated legal proceedings against the network and then backed off. He first threatened to sue in April 2024, leading Fox Nation to quietly remove the series from its library. Advertisement A lawsuit followed in July, only to be withdrawn weeks later. The October case, which was officially dismissed on Friday, cannot be refiled. Although Biden's legal team has offered no public explanation for abandoning the suit, a recent loss in court — where they failed to move the case from federal to state jurisdiction — may have played a role in the decision. The Post has sought comment from Hunter Biden. Advertisement 3 The lawsuit, filed last October, accused Fox of violating New York's Civil Rights Law by broadcasting sexually explicit content of Biden in a six-part miniseries. AFP via Getty Images In his initial filing, Biden alleged that Fox News had crossed a legal line by airing private, sexually explicit images of him, claiming the series amounted to a form of revenge porn and was 'entirely fictionalized.' The complaint accused the network of exploiting Biden's image 'through a form of treatment distinct from the dissemination of news or information.' Advertisement Fox, for its part, defended the program as protected under the First Amendment. 'This entirely politically motivated lawsuit is devoid of merit,' the network said last year. 'The core complaint stems from a 2022 streaming program that Mr. Biden did not complain about until sending a letter in late April 2024. The program was removed within days of the letter, in an abundance of caution.' Fox added that Hunter Biden 'is a public figure who has been the subject of multiple investigations and is now a convicted felon.' 'Consistent with the First Amendment, Fox News has accurately covered the newsworthy events of Mr. Biden's own making, and we look forward to vindicating our rights in court.' Hunter Biden has faced a series of legal troubles, including tax and gun charges. He was convicted last year on three felony counts related to lying about his drug use when purchasing a firearm. 3 Hunter Biden is seen right with wife Melissa Cohen Biden in June 2024. Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post 'The Trial of Hunter Biden' series drew from the contents of a laptop Hunter allegedly left at a Delaware repair shop in 2019. Advertisement The Post's reporting about the laptop was met with widespread censorship across major tech platforms, including Twitter and Facebook, which limited the story's reach under the justification that it could be based on 'hacked materials' — a claim later proven false. The laptop contained tens of thousands of emails, personal messages, financial records and videos, some of which showed Biden engaging in illicit drug use and explicit activity. These materials became a flashpoint in the political debate around media bias, censorship and the Biden family's business dealings.

Colorado town orders organizers to cancel "No Kings" anti-Trump rally citing event conflict
Colorado town orders organizers to cancel "No Kings" anti-Trump rally citing event conflict

CBS News

time13 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Colorado town orders organizers to cancel "No Kings" anti-Trump rally citing event conflict

This Saturday, June 14, hundreds of "No Kings" rallies are expected to take place across the country, including in Colorado, protesting authoritarianism and coinciding with President Trump's birthday, the U.S. Army's 250th birthday, and Flag Day. But in Douglas County, one woman says the Town of Parker stopped her from organizing the event because it coincided with the Parker Days festival a half-mile away. Town officials cite safety as the reason the rally can't occur at the same time as its largest festival, but organizers say it violates their free speech rights. Signs inside Carolyn Williamson's Parker home make it clear how she feels about the Trump administration. "The evil, evil terrifying king," Williamson said, while gesturing to a papier-mâché Trump head she made, before moving to a pile of homemade signs. "I try to make more than one of each kind of theme." Carolyn Williamson, of Parker, Colorado, discusss her efforts to organize a protest in town and being denied a permit by town officials, which she says is a violation of her free speech rights. CBS "He claims to love the Constitution, but he only picks and chooses the things that he likes," Williamson said, citing concerns over recent immigration policy under Trump's leadership. When she learned of plans for "No Kings" rallies across the country on Trump's birthday, she decided to organize one in her community. "We need one in Parker," Williamson said. "We have to use our White privilege and speak up for those who can't while we can." Soon, nearly 400 people had signed up to attend, and Williamson began planning for their safety. "I took some safety and de-escalation training online," Williamson said. "The Boulder thing is at the forefront of everybody's mind. So I reached out to the Parker police." After initially being told she'd need a permit for an event of more than 100 people and would not be able to get one due to Parker Days, Williamson changed plans to host several small gatherings Saturday at intersections across town. But then Williamson says the town's attorney and police chief called to say the rally would need to be canceled because the town didn't have the resources to ensure its safety during Parker Days. "I said, 'well, what about our First Amendment rights?' And they said, 'Well, you're welcome to say anything you want, but you cannot be on public sidewalks that day. You can do it on another weekend,'" Williamson said. "I don't think that they have the constitutional right to deny us the right to protest." "In general, you don't need a permit to demonstrate on a public sidewalk," said Philip Chen, associate professor of political science at the University of Denver. "It's public land." Chen says governments can place some restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech, as long as those restrictions are content-neutral. "The Supreme Court has said it has to be not subject to the content of the speech. It has to be very narrowly tailored to what the government's sort of interest is, and they have to provide some sort of alternative way for that message to be communicated," said Chen. "Content neutrality is going to be the important thing," he continued. "If somebody stood on the sidewalk with a sign for the rally and was told to leave, and another person stood there with a sign saying, 'I love Parker Days,' they would have to also tell that person to leave, or else it wouldn't be what would be considered sort of content-neutral enforcement." While Chen says restricting the time and place of the demonstration for safety reasons likely does not violate First Amendment protections, he says the idea that even a small rally would not be allowed could be an overly restrictive use of time, place and manner allowances, especially if the gathering was small enough to not require a permit. According to the ACLU, "you don't need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don't obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don't have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons." The organization also says, "police may not break up a gathering unless there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety." The Town of Parker said in a statement: "The Town of Parker became aware of a rally that had been scheduled to occur within the Town on June 14, 2025, during the same time the Parker Days Festival is being held in the Town. Based on the considerable resources that the Town provides to ensure the safety of Parker Days attendees and event organizers, the remaining resources available to serve the rest of the Town and all residents and visitors is extremely limited. The Town would be unable to allocate sufficient staff and resources to ensure the safety and needs of the rally participants along with the residents and other visitors to the Town. The Town takes very seriously the safety and well-being of all residents and visitors and wants to ensure that everyone in the Town has the best possible resources available to them. While the Town is supportive of individuals' First Amendment rights, those rights must be balanced with the rights and safety of all other individuals and may be limited under the law if there are concerns related to things such as the timing of events. The Town is truly unable to accommodate another event during the weekend of Parker Days, as it will negatively impact the Town's ability to safely and properly respond to the routine matters within the Town. The Town did offer the rally organizer the ability to work with the Town to determine another possible date to hold the rally." O'Brien Park in Parker, Colorado is seen on Monday, June 9, 2025. CBS The town offered to find another date for the No Kings rally, but Williamson says the message can't wait. "Civil disobedience doesn't always align conveniently with current events," Williamson said. Other No Kings rallies will be held across the metro area, including in Castle Rock, Littleton, and Denver. Monday night, after her interview with CBS News Colorado, Williamson said she decided to still host the event. She says it will be a block-by-block rally Saturday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Williamson plans to organize peaceful demonstrators along Parker Road intersections from Lincoln Avenue to Hess Road. They will skip Mainstreet so as not to interfere with Parker Days.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store