Latest news with #BecketFundforReligiousLiberty
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines to halt land transfer that would destroy sacred site for Western Apache
The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to halt a land transfer in Arizona that Western Apache people say will destroy a scared site in order to mine for copper. The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that allowed the transfer by the federal government to go forward. Two conservative justices — Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — dissented. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case. 'Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning,' Gorsuch wrote in dissent. 'I have no doubt that we would find that case worth our time.' 'Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less,' he wrote. 'They may live far from Washington, D.C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference.' Congress approved the transfer of the federal property in the Tonto National Forest in 2014, and President Donald Trump initiated the exchange in the final days of his first term. The land includes a site known as Oak Flat, where native tribes have practiced religious ceremonies for centuries. A non-profit sued the federal government, asserting that the transfer violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause and a law that requires courts to apply the highest level of scrutiny to any law that burdens religious freedom. The Western Apache, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argued the questions at the heart of the case were 'vitally important for people of all faiths.' An adverse decision, they said, would provide 'a roadmap for eviscerating' federal religious protections in other contexts. 'Many sacred Apache rituals will be ended, not just temporarily but forever,' the group told the Supreme Court. The case arrived at the high court before Trump took power again in January. The Biden administration defended the decision in court papers, arguing that 'Congress has specifically mandated that Oak Flat be transferred so that the area can be used for mining.' Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that the land transfer did not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise since it doesn't coerce or discriminate on the basis of religion. But a federal district court in Arizona on May 9 barred the administration from moving forward with the transfer until the Supreme Court decided what to do with the appeal. US District Judge Steven Logan said the case 'presented serious questions on the merits that warrant the Supreme Court's careful scrutiny.'
USA Today
27-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court declines religious freedom case over mining on sacred land
Supreme Court declines religious freedom case over mining on sacred land Show Caption Hide Caption SCOTUS justices clash over ban on gender-affirming care for minors The Justice Department and ACLU argued before the Supreme Court that a ban on gender-affirming care for minors is discrimination based on sex. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on May 27 declined to get involved in a dispute about mining on land sacred to the San Carlos Apache Tribe, a case that religious groups backed to test the scope of a 1993 federal law protecting religious freedom. Dozens of churches and religious groups urged the court to hear the challenge from members of the tribe, who are represented by a prominent religious rights law firm. Lawyers for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said courts are far too apt to dodge the question of what qualifies as an improper burden on religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Two of the court's conservative justices − Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas − said they would have taken the case. Another conservative justice, Samuel Alito, said he did not participate in the decision. Alito did not give a reason for his recusal. The case the court declined to hear involves a section of the Tonto National Forest in Arizona that sits atop the world's third-largest deposit of copper ore. In 2014, Congress handed over 2,422 acres in the region to a private mining company, Resolution Copper, in exchange for other land in Arizona. Apache Stronghold, an advocacy group representing some members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, sued to block the transfer. The Apache Tribe says the site − called Chí'chil Biłdagoteel, or Oak Flat – is their direct corridor to the Creator and is needed for religious ceremonies that cannot take place elsewhere. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government cannot 'substantially burden' a person's exercise of religion without a 'compelling governmental interest.' The federal government said the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the law doesn't apply when the government is dealing with its own property. But Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said it's obvious that tribal members' religious expression is being hampered. 'Of course, it's a burden on their religion when you blow up their sacred site and they can't worship there,' Rienzi said. 'That's just plain English.' The mining company said that interpretation of the law would allow one person to block any use of public land except their own if they sincerely believed some activity − 'be it camping, hunting, fishing, hiking or mining' – destroyed the land's sanctity. Resolution Copper also said its project has the potential to supply nearly one-quarter of the nation's copper needs to help with the transition to clean energy and other national priorities. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Arizona temporarily blocked the federal government from moving forward with the land transfer until the Supreme Court acted on the appeal.
Boston Globe
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Justices seem set to allow opt-outs from LGBTQ stories in schools
Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that the school board initially allowed parents to withdraw their children when the books were discussed, but reversed course. Advertisement 'I'm not understanding why it's not feasible,' he said, adding, 'They're not asking you to change what's taught in the classroom.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Lawyers for the school system said the opt-outs were hard to administer, led to absenteeism, and risked 'exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.' In recent cases, the Supreme Court has expanded the role of religion in public life, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights. The court has ruled in favor of a web designer who said she did not want to create sites for same-sex marriages, a high school football coach who said he had a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard line after his team's games, and a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia that said it could defy city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples who had applied to take in foster children. Advertisement Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland's largest school system, adopted the new curriculum in 2022. The storybooks included 'Pride Puppy,' an alphabet primer about a family whose puppy gets lost at a Pride parade; 'Love, Violet,' about a girl who develops a crush on her female classmate; and 'Born Ready,' about a transgender boy. Parents of several faiths sued, saying the books violated the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion. The books, their complaint said, 'promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning, and focus excessively on romantic infatuation.' Near the end of the argument, Kavanaugh thanked the school board's lawyer, Alan Schoenfeld, suggesting he had done what he could with hopeless material. 'It's a tough case to argue,' Kavanaugh said. Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court's liberal wing, said the books dealt with sensitive topics. They are, she said, 'young kids' picture books and on matters concerning sexuality.' 'I suspect there are a lot of nonreligious parents who weren't all that thrilled about this,' she said. 'And then you, you know, add in religion and, and that's, you know, even more serious.' But she said the case presented difficult line-drawing problems between allowing school officials to determine what to teach, and respecting parents' ability to oversee their children's religious upbringing. One of those lines, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, was whether simply exposing children to the books put a burden on their parents' faith. 'The mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion,' she said. Advertisement Kagan asked Eric Baxter, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the parents, to help find a line, giving the example of teaching evolution in a biology class. Baxter said parents should be able to withdraw their children whenever instruction conflicted with their sincerely held religious views. The upshot of that approach, Kagan said, was 'opt-outs for everyone.' Two justices had differing interpretations of one of the books, 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' about a same-sex union. 'The book has a clear message,' Alito said, '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.' He focused on one character in the book, which is intended to be read by 3- to 6-year-olds. A little girl named Chloe has reservations about her uncle's marriage, Alito said, but her mother corrects her. 'It's a clear moral message' endorsing same-sex marriage, the justice said. Sotomayor interjected. 'Wait a minute,' she said. She said Chloe was not objecting to same-sex marriage as such. 'She was objecting to having her uncle's time taken by someone else,' she said. Alito responded that 'we could have a book club and have a debate about how Uncle Bobby's marriage should be understood.' The parents said they were not seeking to remove the books from school libraries and classrooms, but to shield their children from having to discuss them. (The school system has since withdrawn two of the books, including 'Pride Puppy.' Schoenfeld said that was part of 'the ordinary review process.') Kavanaugh, who lives in Montgomery County, discussed Maryland's long-standing commitment to religious pluralism with Schoenfeld. 'I guess I'm surprised, given that this is, you know, this is the hill we're going to die on, in terms of not respecting religious liberty,' Kavanaugh said. Advertisement Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether judges, as opposed to local school board officials, were better suited to determine what should be part of a public school's curriculum. 'These questions don't always have one answer,' she said. 'Maybe in one community, one set of values, these books are fine, but in another community with a different set about values, they're not. And it's sort of the local process that allows that to cash out where people live, that allow their values to get expressed.' This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court appears inclined to rule for parents seeking opt-outs for LGBTQ-themed instruction
The Supreme Court appeared inclined Tuesday to side with a group of parents objecting to their school district including books with LGBTQ themes in its elementary school curriculum. Across more than two hours of arguments, a majority of the justices sympathized with the Montgomery County, Md., parents' claims that the lack of an opt-out option substantially burdens their First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion. 'What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?' conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked. Montgomery County, which serves more than 160,000 students in the Maryland suburbs of the nation's capital and is one of the country's most diverse school districts, began introducing LGBTQ-inclusive books in its elementary school language arts curriculum at the start of the 2022-23 school year. The books include titles like 'Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,' which is centered on the author's transgender son, and 'Love, Violet,' which tells the story of two young girls in a same-sex romance. 'The book has a clear message,' Alito said of one of the books, indicating he had read several of the titles. 'And a lot of people think it is a good message. And maybe it is a good message, but it is a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with,' he added. Initially, the school board allowed parents to opt out their children, but the county rescinded the option beginning the following school year. Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly questioned why the school district was refusing the option and walked through Montgomery County's history of being a 'beacon' of religious liberty. 'I guess I am a bit mystified, as a lifelong resident of the county, how it came to this,' Kavanaugh said. As the county removed the opt-out option, an organization and three sets of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents sued, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which regularly brings religion cases before the high court. 'The First Amendment demands more,' Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, told the justices of the county's policy. The parents argue the county's decision violates the Supreme Court's holding in a 1972 case, Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which it ruled Wisconsin couldn't require Amish children to attend public school beyond the eighth grade, because parents have the constitutional right to guide the religious future and education of their children. But lower courts declined to put the county's policy on hold as the case proceeded, saying the plaintiffs didn't show their religious exercise was substantially burdened. The parents appealed to the Supreme Court after a divided panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their bid. Though a majority of the court's conservatives seemed ready to rule with the parents, the justices explored several different legal avenues for how to get there. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, two of President Trump's appointees to the court, repeatedly questioned if they should consider whether the county's policy demonstrates hostility against certain practices that amounts to religious discrimination. Meanwhile, the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line, peppering hypotheticals about a gay teacher who has a photo of their same-sex spouse on their desk or a teacher who calls a transgender student by their preferred pronouns. 'It'll be like opt-outs for everyone,' Justice Elena Kagan said. Outside the courthouse, dozens of protesters gathered at side-by-side competing rallies. The group supporting the county read some of the books used by the school district, carrying signs with messages such as 'Our Love is Louder.' The competing group included demonstrators who held signs displaying slogans like 'Let Kids be Kids' and 'Let Parents Parent.' The case is the first of two this session in which the justices will delve into religion and schools. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the bid in Oklahoma to create the nation's first religious public charter school. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court appears to favor parents' right to opt out of LGBTQ+ stories for their children
The Supreme Court justices sounded ready on Tuesday to give parents a constitutional right to opt out of public school lessons for their children that offend their religious beliefs. 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.
