Supreme Court appears to favor parents' right to opt out of LGBTQ+ stories for their children
At issue are new "LGBTQ-inclusive" storybooks used for classroom reading for pre-kindergarten to 5th grade in Montgomery County, Md., a suburb of Washington where three justices reside.
In recent years, the court's six conservatives have invoked the "free exercise of religion" to protect Catholic schools from illegal job-bias claims from teachers and to give parents an equal right to use state grants to send their children to religious schools.
During an argument on Tuesday, they strongly suggested they would extend religious liberty rights to parents with children in public schools.
Read more: Supreme Court temporarily halts more Venezuelan detainee removals under Alien Enemies Act
"They are not asking to change what is taught in the classroom," Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh told an attorney for the court.
"As a lifelong resident of the county, I'm mystified at how it came to this. They had promised parents they would be notified and allow to opt out" if they objected to the new storybooks, he said. "But the next day, they changed the rule."
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch also live in Montgomery County, and both have been reliable supporters of religious liberty claims.
Nearly every state, including Maryland and California, has a law that allows parents to opt out of sex education classes for their children.
When the new storybooks were introduced in the fall of 2022, parents were told their young children could be removed from those lessons. But when "unsustainably high numbers" of children were absent, the school board revoked the opt-out rule.
They explained this state rule applied to older students and sex education, but not to reading lessons for elementary children.
In reaction, a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents filed a suit in federal court, seeking an order that would allow their children be removed from class during the reading lessons.
They said the books conflicted with the religious and moral views they taught their children.
A federal judge and the 4th Circuit Court refused to intervene. Those judges said the "free exercise" of religion protects people from being forced to change their conduct or their beliefs, neither of which were at issue in the school case.
But the Supreme Court voted to hear the parents' appeal in the case of Mahmoud vs. Taylor.
Representing the parents, Eric Baxter, an attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stressed they "were not objecting to books being on the shelf or in the library. No student has a right to tell the school which books to choose," he said. "Here, the school board is imposing indoctrination on these children."
Alan Shoenfeld, an attorney for the school board, said its goal for the new storybooks was "to foster mutual respect. The lesson is that they should treat their peers with respect."
He cautioned the court against adding a broad new right for parents and students to object to ideas or messages that offend them.
Read more: As Muslims' status as political punching bag fades, some are fighting against LGBTQ+ acceptance
The Becket attorneys in their legal brief described seven books they found objectionable.
One of them, "Pride Puppy," is a picture book directed at 3- and 4-year-olds. It "describes a Pride parade and what a child might find there," they said. "The book invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of 'underwear,' 'leather,' 'lip ring,' [drag] king' and [drag] queen.'"
Another — "Love, Violet" — is about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance.
"Born Ready" tells the story of a biological girl named Penelope who identifies as a boy.
"Intersection Allies" is a picture book also intended for early elementary school classes.
"It invites children to ponder what it means to be 'transgender' or 'non-binary' and asks 'what pronouns fit you?'' they said. Teachers were told "to instruct students that, at birth, doctors 'guess about our gender,' but '[w]e know ourselves best.'"
They said teachers were instructed to 'disrupt the either/or thinking' of elementary students about biological sex.
After the case reached the Supreme Court, two of the seven books were dropped by the school board, including "Pride Puppy."
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
4 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
A Defense of George Mason's Diversity Hiring
Your editorial 'A Rebuke for George Mason' (Aug. 5) misunderstands the law and the mission of public higher education. Diversity hiring isn't inherently discriminatory. The Supreme Court has long held that institutions may consider diversity as one factor in a holistic evaluation. President Gregory Washington's comment about seeking candidates who are 'above the bar' but offer 'a broader, shared understanding of what 'best' means' reflects this principle, not an abandonment of merit. Elite institutions increasingly recognize what research shows: Diverse faculties lead to better research, foster innovation and better serve diverse student populations. George Mason enrolls one of the most diverse student populations in Virginia, but its faculty diversity has lagged. That's a legitimate institutional concern, not political theater.
Bloomberg
5 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Bloomberg Law: SCOTUS Could Narrow Bribery Law
Former federal prosecutor Mark Chutkow, a member of Dykema Gossett, discusses how Michael Madigan's appeal of his corruption conviction, could lead to the Supreme Court further narrowing the scope of corruption law. Joshua Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico Law School and a former prosecutor and judge in the US Air Force, discusses President Trump's expansion of the military for domestic tasks. June Grasso hosts.
Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Newsweek
Full List of Supreme Court Cases to Be Heard This Coming Fall Term
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 Supreme Court has released its October and November oral argument calendars for the 2025 term. Why It Matters The Supreme Court will begin its 2025 term on October 6. The justices are expected to hear several cases about issues that have drawn public interest, including redistricting and conversion therapy bans. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. Aaron M. Sprecher via AP Villareal v. Texas Oral arguments in Villareal v. Texas are scheduled for October 6. The case presents the question of whether a court violates a defendant's right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. The petitioner, David Asa Villareal, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison. Villareal testified during the trial. On the first day of his testimony, the court declared a recess and dismissed the jury due to a previously scheduled administrative commitment. The court instructed Villarreal and his attorneys not to discuss his testimony during the 24-hour recess. "When a defendant confers with his attorney, the defendant's testimony permeates every aspect of counsel's advice," attorneys for Villareal wrote in a petition for a writ of certiorari. "There is no way to separate discussions of testimony from discussions of trial strategy. Prohibiting counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess is tantamount to preventing counsel from doing his or her job." Berk v. Choy The justices will also hear oral arguments in Berk v. Choy on October 6. The question presented in this case is whether a state law requiring the dismissal of a complaint if it is not accompanied by an expert affidavit may apply in federal court. Chiles v. Salazar The Court will hear arguments in Chiles v. Salazar on October 7. The justices will consider whether a Colorado state law banning conversion therapy for minors by mental health counselors violates free speech rights. The petitioner, Kaley Chiles, is a licensed counselor. "A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex," attorneys for Chiles wrote in a petition for a writ of certiorari. "Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express." Attorneys for the respondents said legal precedent holds that the First Amendment permits states to regulate the practice of conversion therapy, "like other unsafe and ineffective health care treatments, even when those treatments involve speech." Barrett v. United States Oral arguments in Barrett v. United States are scheduled for October 7. The petitioner, Dwayne Barrett, was convicted of aiding a robbery by driving the codefendant to the scene, aiding the use of a gun during that robbery, a "crime of violence," and aiding the use of a gun used to kill during a "crime of violence." The justices will consider whether Barrett's sentencing on two charges violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections on October 8. One petitioner in this case is Representative Mike Bost, a Republican from Illinois. The Court will consider whether the petitioners have presented sufficient factual allegations to challenge state time, place and manner regulations concerning federal elections. Postal Service v. Konan Oral arguments in Postal Service v. Konan are scheduled for October 8. The case centers around an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act barring lawsuits for claims arising out of the "loss" or "miscarriage" of "letters or postal matter." The justices will consider whether the exception applies to claims that arise from a USPS employee's intentional failure to deliver mail to a designated address. Bowe v. United States The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Bowe v. United States on October 14. The case centers around procedural questions related to the application of the federal laws governing post-conviction relief for federal prisoners. Ellingburg v. United States Oral arguments in Ellingburg v. United States are scheduled for October 14. The Court will consider whether a restitution order, imposed as part of a criminal sentence, violates a clause of the Constitution barring laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime or criminalize conduct that was legal when it occurred. Louisiana v. Callais Louisiana v. Callais, a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, is set for reargument on October 15. The justices first heard arguments in the redistricting case earlier this year. The Court will consider whether the map is racially gerrymandered to create majority-minority districts and whether the new districts violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The case was consolidated with Robinson v. Callais. Case v. Montana The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Case v. Montana on October 15. The justices will consider whether law enforcement can enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring. Petitioner William Trevor Case alleges that law enforcement entered his home without a warrant and seized evidence used to prosecute Case for a felony. Case's ex-girlfriend had previously called law enforcement and said Case had threatened suicide during an argument over the phone. Rico v. United States Oral arguments in Rico v. United States are scheduled for November 3. The Court will consider whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release. Petitioner Isabel Rico had her supervised release revoked by a court because she had been deemed a fugitive by a probation office in 2018. Hencely v. Fluor Corporation The Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Hencely v. Fluor Corporation on November 3. The justices will consider whether a member of the U.S. armed forces who was injured in a military base bombing can sue the government contractor who employed the bomber. Hamm v. Smith The Court will hear arguments in Hamm v. Smith on November 4. The question presented is whether and how courts should assess a claim by a defendant that he cannot be executed because he is intellectually disabled. The Alabama Department of Corrections argues that Joseph Smith is not intellectually disabled, citing multiple IQ tests where he scored higher than the level required to prove intellectual disability under the law. The Department of Corrections is asking the Court to reverse a lower court's decision overturning Smith's sentence. Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist Oral arguments in Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist are scheduled for November 4. The case asks whether a district court's final judgment must be vacated when an appeals court later determines that it erroneously dismissed a party from the case when it was transferred to federal court. Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton The justices will hear oral arguments in Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton on November 5. Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety Oral arguments in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety are set for November 10. The Court will consider whether an inmate can file a lawsuit against a government official for violations of a federal law that protects the religious rights of prisoners, rather than the government entity that employs the official. Damon Landor, the petitioner, is a practicing Rastafarian. He alleges that he was held down by two prison guards while his head was shaved. Landor sued several officials and the Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety. A district court found that the law does not allow for damages against individual state officials. The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal The Court is expected to hear arguments in The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal on November 10. Fernandez v. United States The justices will hear arguments in Fernandez v. United States on November 12. The Court will consider whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that may justify a lower sentence can also be cited as reasons to vacate a sentence in a motion for post-conviction relief. Rutherford v. United States Oral arguments in Rutherford v. United States are scheduled for November 12. The case has been consolidated with Carter v. United States. The case also relates to "extraordinary and compelling reasons" allowing for a reduced sentence. The justices will consider whether a district court can address disparities created by the First Step Act's prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentencing reduction. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
