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

Houthis Defiant After Unprecedented Israeli Naval Attack
Houthis Defiant After Unprecedented Israeli Naval Attack

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

Houthis Defiant After Unprecedented Israeli Naval Attack

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Houthis will keep carrying out military operations against Israel in support for Gaza, a spokesperson said, dismissing the impact of Tuesday's unprecedented naval attack on the Hodeida port in Yemen. Israel had previously struck only from the air. Newsweek has reached out to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for comment. Why It Matters The port attack comes as the Yemeni Houthis have defied Israel by targeted its Ben Gurion international airport with ballistic missiles, including one last month that the Israeli missile defense systems failed to intercept, causing a brief disruption of air traffic. Israel is currently facing the Houthi threat alone after the United States signed a ceasefire agreement with the Iranian-backed rebel group, which has in the past disrupted maritime navigation through the Red Sea and whose capabilities were not neutralized despite heavy U.S. airstrikes for over a month. Houthi supporters wear Muslim pilgrims dress, known as "Ihram", as they burn American and Israeli flags during an anti-U.S. and anti-Israel weekly rally in Sanaa, Yemen, Friday, May 30, 2025. Houthi supporters wear Muslim pilgrims dress, known as "Ihram", as they burn American and Israeli flags during an anti-U.S. and anti-Israel weekly rally in Sanaa, Yemen, Friday, May 30, 2025. Osamah Abdulrahman/AP Photo What To Know Nasruddin Amer, Head of Houthi-controlled Saba News Agency said the recent Israeli port attack has "no significant impact" on the group's "preparations for escalation and expansion of operations deep inside the Zionist enemy entity," he wrote on his X account in a reference to Israel. "It has no impact even on the morale of our people who take to the streets weekly by the millions in support of Gaza," he added. In a separate post, Amer alleged that Israel carried a naval aggression to avoid air force defeat by the Houthis. The IDF said that the navy's operational flexibility with close range strikes had allowed it to hit targets at Hodeida port that the air force had struggled to neutralize in around 10 prior airstrikes on the Houthis since mid-2024, according to The Jerusalem Post. The Houthis have warned international vessels from carrying weapons to Israel through the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab with the threat of possible attacks. The Houthis say they are acting in support of Gaza, which has been devastated by an Israeli offensive since Hamas launched an attack on Israel from there in October 2023. What People Are Saying Nasrudding Amer wrote on X: "Have the skies of Yemen become closed to American, Zionist and other aircraft?! The coming days will answer these questions and others." Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on X: "Israeli Navy Missile Ships struck terror targets belonging to the Houthi terrorist regime in the Hudaydah Port in Yemen. These strikes were conducted in response to repeated missile and UAV attacks on Israeli territory. The Hudaydah Port is used to transfer weapons and to exploit civilian infrastructure in order to advance terrorist activities." What Happens Next The Houthis have vowed to uphold a naval blockade on Israel-linked vessels passing through the Red Sea as well as attacks targeting Ben Gurion airport, with Israel pledging to deliver a powerful response.

New York City Democratic mayoral primary debate: six key takeaways
New York City Democratic mayoral primary debate: six key takeaways

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

New York City Democratic mayoral primary debate: six key takeaways

In the first debate of the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, nine candidates took the stage and fielded questions on housing, affordability, crime, policing, public safety, political regrets and how each candidate would handle the Trump administration if elected. The candidates included former New York governor Andrew Cuomo; democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani; the New York City council speaker, Adrienne Adams; the current New York City comptroller, Brad Lander; former comptroller Scott Stringer; former Bronx assemblyman Michael Blake; state senators Zellnor Myrie and Jessica Ramos; and former hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson. The current mayor, Eric Adams, was not present on Wednesday as he is running for re-election as an independent candidate, although he ran as a Democrat in 2021. A few takeaways from the debate: Throughout the debate, former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, the current frontrunner in the race, was grilled on his record by his Democratic rivals. Related: Democratic candidates for New York mayor spar over housing, Covid and Trump Cuomo spent much of the night sparring with progressive state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, who is polling second. Mamdani accused Cuomo of being beholden to wealthy donors and corporate interests, saying Cuomo prioritized the '1%, the billionaires and the profitable corporations', over 'working-class New Yorkers'. Cuomo dismissed the 33-year-old as inexperienced, calling Mamdani 'very good on Twitter and with videos' but saying he was someone who 'produces nothing'. 'He's been in government 27 minutes, he passed three bills, that's all he's done,' Cuomo said. 'He has no experience with Washington, no experience with New York City.' Trump came up several times, as the candidates agreed the next mayor must be ready to stand up to his administration if elected mayor, though they differed on who was best equipped to do so. 'I know how to deal with Donald Trump because I've dealt with him before,' Cuomo said, citing his experience as New York governor. Mamdani warned that 'President Trump will target whomever is the next mayor of this city' and said that is 'important that we have a mayor who will fight back and that is what I will do'. 'I am Donald Trump's worst nightmare as a progressive Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things that I believe in,' Mamdani added. 'And the difference between myself and Andrew Cuomo is that my campaign is not funded by the very billionaires who put Donald Trump in DC.' Cuomo fired back, saying that 'Donald Trump would go through Mr Mamdani like a hot knife through butter'. 'He would be Trump's delight,' Cuomo added. Mamdani countered: 'It's true that I don't have experience with corrupt Trump billionaires that are funding my campaign. I don't have experience with party politics and insider consultants. I do have experience, however, with winning $450m in debt relief for thousands of working-class taxi drivers and actually delivering for working-class people.' Adrienne Adams, the speaker of the New York city council, said she would take legal action against Trump when necessary. Asked how they would respond if the Trump administration ordered city-run hospitals to stop providing care to undocumented patients or risk losing millions in federal funding, all candidates voiced strong opposition to Trump's recent crackdown on immigration in general. 'You cannot give in to Mr Trump and his demands,' Cuomo said. 'If you give in to him, he is a bully, I know him well, if you give in to him today, you will be giving him your lunch money for the rest of your life.' 'You have to fight him and the way you fight him is not by suing him,' the former governor said. 'We need a national coalition, which we can put together of like-minded states and cities that will oppose these actions and then we're going to have to eventually beat him politically in Congress.' Whitney Tilson said that if Trump were to act 'illegally to try and blackmail us, you have to sue to restore that funding', adding that he was 'appalled by what Trump is doing to terrorize immigrant communities' and would 'fight him tooth and nail'. Mamdani said that New York City was 'under attack by an authoritarian Trump administration'. 'The way that we fight back is ensure that our local institutions continue to provide the services to each and every New Yorker,' he said. 'We will tell those institutions that we will provide that funding and we will get that funding by taxing the 1% and the wealthiest corporations.' Pressed about his administration's handling of nursing home deaths during the Covid-19 pandemic – a 2021 report by the New York attorney general found that his office undercounted thousands of deaths of state nursing home residents – Cuomo defended his record, claiming the numbers were not, in fact, undercounted. He also denied the sexual harassment allegations against him that led to his resignation. 'I said at the time that if I offended anyone it was unintentional but I apologize and I say that today,' he said. City council speaker Adrienne Adams took a swipe at the current mayor. 'My biggest regret is believing that Eric Adams would be a good mayor for all New Yorkers,' she said. The city's comptroller, Brad Lander, said that he regretted not pushing 'for more housing in his Brooklyn district when he was a city council member'. Mandani used the moment to target Cuomo once more, saying that 'as a Democrat, one of my regrets is having trusted the leaders within our own party, leaders like Andrew Cuomo'. Cuomo, on the other hand, said his biggest regret was 'the state of the Democratic party', which prompted backlash from other candidates on stage. 'No personal regrets?' asked Adrienne Adams. 'No regrets when it comes to cutting Medicaid or healthcare? No regrets when it comes to slow-walking PPE and vaccinations in the season of Covid to Black and brown communities? Really, no regrets?' Cuomo said her claims were 'not accurate', adding: 'Medicaid went up under me. I pushed President Trump to give us everything he had, leading the way during Covid.' The moderators asked the candidates how much they pay in rent or mortgage in New York City. Adams said she owned her home and that it was paid off; Mamdani said he pays $2,300 a month in rent for a rent-stabilized apartment in Astoria. Blake said he spends about $1,800 for a home that he owns, while Myrie said his rent-stabilized apartment was $1,300 a month and Ramos said her rent was $2,500 a month. Lander said his mortgage was $3,300 a month. Cuomo said that he pays $7,800 a month, while Tilson said that he owned his home and paid about $5,000 per month in maintenance fees and taxes. Stringer said he pays $6,400.

Ali Velshi: Have Americans grown numb? Trump's new travel ban met with muted reaction
Ali Velshi: Have Americans grown numb? Trump's new travel ban met with muted reaction

Yahoo

timean 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

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