Latest news with #LGBTQ-inclusive
NBC News
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- NBC News
Queer art faces widespread museum censorship, curators say
When artist Amy Sherald canceled her LGBTQ-inclusive Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery show 'American Sublime' last month, it was just the latest in a series of censorship episodes involving LGBTQ art at major American museums this year. In February, Washington, D.C.'s Art Museum of the Americas canceled 'Nature's Wild With Andil Gosine' just weeks before the exhibition's scheduled opening in March, without saying why. The group show was to have included works inspired by Gosine's 2021 book, 'Nature's Wild: Love, Sex and Law in the Caribbean,' which reflects on art, activism and homosexuality in the region. The same month, Arizona's Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art made eleventh-hour edits to a traveling exhibition of women, queer and trans artists, which had previously been called 'transfeminisms,' altering the title of its condensed show to 'There are other skies.' Marinna Shareef with Andil Gosine's "God of Whimsy" In April, the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art postponed a group exhibition of works by LGBTQ African artists titled 'Here: Pride and Belonging in African Art,' which had been scheduled for a late May opening to coincide with WorldPride. The D.C. museum cited budgetary reasons for postponing the show to 2026, but the timing was hard to miss on the heels of Trump administration directives to the Smithsonian to remove 'improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology' from its museums — as well as the forced and pre-emptive relocation of other WorldPride cultural events after Trump administration firings at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. 'There's something about the combination of art and sexuality that still remains the third rail in the American museum world,' art historian Jonathan D. Katz told NBC News. Katz was the lead curator for 'The First Homosexuals: The Birth of a New Identity, 1869-1939,' the vast and successful historical survey of LGBTQ art that ran through early July at Chicago's Wrightwood 659 Gallery. Katz traces the roots of modern queer art censorship to the controversial Robert Mapplethorpe exhibition 'The Perfect Moment,' which — with its provocative imagery, much of it homoerotic — became a cultural lightning rod at the height of the Reagan/Bush-era culture wars in 1989-90. 'You'd think that decades later, this would no longer be a live wire, but it still seems to be,' Katz said. Activists in downtown Cincinnati in 1990 as jury selection began in obscenity charges against the Contemporary Arts Center for exhibiting photographs by the late artist Robert Mapplethorpe. Al Behrmann / AP file Central to the cancellation of Sherald's show was her painting 'Trans Forming Liberty,' which features a Black trans woman posing as the Statue of Liberty. After she learned that the National Portrait Gallery had 'internal concerns' about the painting and planned to replace or supplement it with a video to provide 'both sides' of its trans subject matter, Sherald balked and canceled her entire show, which would have been the museum's first solo exhibition by a Black contemporary artist. 'While no single person is to blame, it's clear that institutional fear shaped by a broader climate of political hostility toward trans lives played a role,' Sherald, who rose to fame when she painted former first lady Michelle Obama's official portrait, said in a statement after the cancellation. 'At a time when transgender people are being legislated against, silenced, and endangered across our nation, silence is not an option.' After the cancellation, a spokesperson for the Smithsonian Institution, which oversees the gallery, disputed Sherald's claims and said that the institution wanted more time to better contextualize the painting but that Sherald canceled before that could be done. Katz said Sherald's withdrawal of the exhibit 'is what this moment requires.' 'I bow to her,' he said. 'She's willing to do it, she's got the strength to do it, and I think it's extraordinary.' The National Portrait Gallery is one of eight Smithsonian museums targeted as part of the first phase of an expansive review announced by the Trump administration on Tuesday. The review will analyze all aspects of current and future museum exhibitions to ensure alignment with the president's March executive order calling for 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.' Gustave Caillebotte's "Boat Party" is now on view at the Art Institute of Chicago. Sophie Crépy / Musée d'Orsay In June, across town from 'The First Homosexuals,' the Art Institute of Chicago opened a traveling exhibition of 19th century French artist Gustave Caillebotte's male-focused and arguably homoerotic work, changing the show's name from 'Gustave Caillebotte: Painting Men' to 'Gustave Caillebotte: Painting His World.' Wall texts accompanying the artworks at the Art Institute take a more general approach than they had at the exhibition's previous incarnations at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris and the Getty Center in Los Angeles, where frank discussions of gender and sexuality were included. 'That one was particularly galling, because not only did the show coincide with my show, but I wrote for the catalog of that exhibition precisely how one talks about same-sex desire in Caillebotte's work,' Katz said. Katz's associate curator for 'The First Homosexuals,' Johnny Willis, added, 'We're not asking them to say that Gustave Caillebotte was gay ... We're asking them to leave open the possibility, and to foreground the blurriness of these questions in the late 19th century.' In a statement to NBC News, the Art Institute of Chicago said its 'Painting His World' title is more illustrative of what people will see when they come to the exhibition, which 'reflects Caillebotte's full lived experience and daily life, including his personal relationships with the men in his life, like his brother, colleagues, and friends.' The institute added that it's 'common practice' for the same exhibition to have differing titles and wall labels when it's at different museums. The Smithsonian National Museum of African Art — which was not included in the Trump administration's Phase I review — said in a statement on Tuesday that the postponement of its LGBTQ exhibition was due to private funding challenges and that pushing it back to early 2026 'provide the museum additional time to increase fundraising for the exhibit.' The Art Museum of the Americas and Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art did not immediately respond to NBC News' requests for comment regarding their canceled and altered exhibits. Alice Austen's 1891 photograph "The Darned Club" was on view earlier this year at "The First Homosexuals" exhibition at Wrightwood 659 in Chicago. Willis said that a 'particular strain of '1 Percent' conservatism' is running some American museums today and that it is contributing to a rise in censorship. 'A lot of these museums are privately funded,' Willis said. 'So I think it's about trying to pacify a class of oligarchs that by and large run these museums, for whom questions of explicit uncensored sexuality are frankly anathema to their values.' Fortunately for Katz and Willis — and Chicago audiences — the innovative exhibition space Wrightwood 659, just seven years old and committed to presenting socially engaged art, stepped up to host 'The First Homosexuals' when virtually every other American museum turned it down. 'One museum director said to me, 'It's precisely the exhibition I'd like to show, and therefore the one that I can't,'' Katz said. After the show's success, Katz said, he was sure that several museums that had turned it down would ask to host it next. 'Never happened,' he said. 'Rave reviews, the last two months were sold out, waiting lists of 100-plus people — I mean, everything a museum could want, and yet no.' Instead, the exhibition will travel next to Switzerland's Kunstmuseum Basel, where it will open in the spring. Canadian artist Kent Monkman works on one of his large-scale history paintings, called "The Scream," in 2016. Randy Risling / Toronto Star via Getty Images file For now, queer art is still finding a home at some major American museums. 'Kent Monkman: History is Painted by the Victors' runs through this weekend at the Denver Art Museum; New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art is showcasing 'Casa Susanna' through Jan. 25; and in Los Angeles, the Getty Center has a double feature of queer shows, 'Queer Lens: A History of Photography' and $3 Bill: Evidence of Queer Lives, both on view through Sept. 28. 'These exhibitions do what we always hope an exhibition will do — bring visibility to lesser-known histories through the display of art to the public,' said Timothy Potts, director of the J. Paul Getty Museum. The Denver Art Museum's Native Arts curator, John P. Lukavic, said editing the exhibition was never a consideration for the museum, having worked with Monkman, a queer, Two-Spirit artist, for more than a dozen years. 'Presenting his work and the queer themes he explores are completely normal for us and our community,' Lukavic said. Willis said museum officials underestimate the public's appetite for queer-themed shows. 'I don't think a lot of these museum officials realize how much of a gold mine this is,' Willis said. 'There is enormous hunger for these histories, these stories, these narratives right now — not to mention that it can bolster a reputation. You can mark yourself as an institution that upholds bravery.'
02-07-2025
- Politics
LGBTQ book opt-out ruling triggers national response from parents, educators, advocates
After the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, must be allowed to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed elementary school lessons, reactions were swift and sharply divided. The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, stemmed from Montgomery County's 2022 decision to incorporate LGBTQ-inclusive books into elementary classrooms. Titles included "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which features a same-sex couple, and "Born Ready," which tells the story of a transgender child. The school district initially allowed parents to opt out their children from exposure to the books but later reversed that policy, citing administrative burdens and in an effort to foster inclusion. In a press briefing shortly after the decision, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche praised the ruling. "Restoring the right of parents to make decisions about their children's education might seem like common sense," Blanche said, "but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight." For some, however, the ruling felt like a step backward. "I think the ruling is a huge setback," Beth Hoffman, a Maryland-based mom of two, whose children attend public school in Frederick County, told "GMA." "Public schools should be an inclusive space. I hope that this isn't an end-all be-all. We need to celebrate our differences and educate our youth to accept people for who they are." The Frederick County Public School District, like Montgomery County, allows parents to opt children out of its Family Life Education curriculum, part of its "Comprehensive Health Education for students in grades 5-12," according to a spokesperson. Bill Horn, a gay father of two based in Los Angeles, whose kids will be attending public school in the fall, said his initial reaction was sadness. "I feel sorry for any young person whose family takes them out of an LGBTQ+ inclusive lesson, because ultimately that lesson might save their lives," he told "GMA" in an email. Debate intensifies over parental rights and LGBTQ inclusion in public schools Mahmoud v. Taylor was brought by brought by a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents who argued the district's curriculum opt-out change violated their religious freedom. The Supreme Court's conservative majority agreed and upheld a preliminary injunction that requires schools to notify parents and permit opt-outs when such content is used. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying exposure to diverse ideas does not amount to government indoctrination but is instead the purpose of public education. While the decision applies directly to Montgomery County, it sets a precedent for similar lawsuits and policies nationwide. In a statement following the ruling, Montgomery County Public Schools reaffirmed its commitment to diversity and inclusion, while expressing disappointment in the outcome. "Although not surprised, we are disappointed in today's ruling. This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system. It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community," the district said. "Montgomery County Public Schools remains a welcoming and inclusive school system that embraces and celebrates each and every one of our students," the statement continued. "We will maintain an environment where all students feel valued and supported. Equity is one of our core values and is foundational to who we are as a system that serves one of the most diverse communities in the United States of America." MCPS added that it is reviewing the Supreme Court's decision and developing a plan for implementation that honors both the legal directive and the district's mission. "We will continue to analyze the Supreme Court decision and develop next steps in alignment with today's decision and, as importantly, our values. Schools and families will receive further guidance prior to the start of the upcoming school year," the statement read. "MCPS will continue to have inclusive books, which reflect the rich diversity of the students and families that we serve in Montgomery County." Supporters have hailed the court's decision as a long-overdue affirmation of family values. "The Supreme Court sent a powerful message today: parents do not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids," Grace Morrison, a board member for Kids First, a parental rights advocacy group, said in an official statement. "I am deeply grateful to have been part of this historic triumph for parental rights nationwide." Critics, however, warn that the decision could mean further marginalization of LGBTQ students and could undermine efforts to build more inclusive classrooms moving forward. Sari Beth Rosenberg, a U.S. history and AP U.S. history teacher in New York City, said the ruling could make it significantly harder to create welcoming spaces for all students. "It sends a message to LGBTQ students and families that their identities are controversial or unwelcome, which completely undermines my efforts to build a respectful, supportive learning environment," Rosenberg said. "Our schools are supposed to prepare students to participate in a diverse democracy, and we can't do that if we're forced to erase entire communities from the curriculum." Differing views on liberty and inclusion Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling "a historic victory for parental rights" in an official statement. "Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents -- not government -- have the final say in how their children are raised," he added. But LGBTQ advocates say the ruling allows families to exempt their children from learning about diverse identities, sending harmful messages to students whose families reflect those very realities. "Every child deserves to see themselves reflected in the stories they read and to be celebrated in their classrooms for who they truly are," said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "This ruling not only tells LGBTQ+ students that they don't belong, but that their experiences and existence are less worthy of respect. It's wrong, it's dangerous, and it's cruel, plain and simple." Ruling on online access raises censorship concerns In a separate 6-3 decision Friday, the court upheld a Texas law requiring websites with significant sexual content to implement strict age-verification systems. The law mandates that adult sites where more than one-third of content is deemed "harmful to minors" must verify users' age using secure identification before granting access. The court's decision only affects the Texas law and not similar laws instituted in other states. Titania Jordan, chief parent officer at Bark Technologies, a parental controls company that helps parents protect their children online, said enforcing such a requirement at scale poses major technological and financial challenges, particularly for smaller platforms. "Sites would need to integrate reliable identity providers or build their own verification systems, which can be expensive and technically complex," Jordan told "GMA." "Implementing biometric checks or secure document scans requires strict anti-fraud measures." Still, she said she supports the overall goal of the law. "Let's not lose focus of what's important here: keeping kids safer online," she said. "To protect both children and digital freedoms, any legislation should be narrowly tailored and paired with rigorous oversight to maximize data privacy." Legal experts say the ruling raises new questions about internet censorship, particularly if definitions of "sexual" content expand. Austin-based criminal defense attorney Sam Bassett noted that while the court backed Texas, it rejected the Fifth Circuit's earlier rationale. "The Fifth Circuit applied the rational basis test -- the least rigorous standard used to evaluate constitutional challenges -- agreeing with Texas that the ID requirement didn't implicate a fundamental right, since it only applied to minors," he told "GMA." "The Supreme Court decision did not agree with the Fifth Circuit's 'rational basis' application of First Amendment protections, yet it also rejected the higher 'strict scrutiny' standard of analysis," he continued. "The basis for their decision seems to be largely based upon an analysis that the Texas age-verification statute was targeted at limiting access only to those under the age of 18, and we have many laws which prohibit access to minors." Still, Bassett warned that if the law were applied more broadly to restrict access to non-explicit but sensitive material, such as information about gender identity or sexual orientation, it could raise serious constitutional issues. "A prohibition of access to those types of websites, in my view, would likely face a 'strict scrutiny' analysis under the First Amendment, as there is no recognized precedent to bar minors from information regarding those topics," he said. Together, the two rulings reflect a growing legal and political divide over who gets to decide what young people can see, learn and access, whether in a classroom or on the internet. Although the LGBTQ+ book ruling currently applies only to Montgomery County, legal analysts say it could shape broader education policy and religious liberty claims across the country in the years to come.
Los Angeles Times
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
California law faces re-write as high court allows parents to ‘opt out' of LGBTQ school stories
California officials must quickly confront a re-write of state policy in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Friday that supporting families that wish to opt their children out of lessons with LGBTQ+ characters and pro-LGBTQ+ themes. The case involved new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks used in pre-kindergarten to 5th-grade classes in Montgomery County, Md., a suburb of Washington. The potential implications go well beyond storybooks and touch on California's approach to education. California law requires students to learn and be provided age-appropriate instructional materials at all grade levels that explain and incorporate the 'role and contributions' of, among others, 'lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.' In some important respects, the California approach to LGBTQ+ inclusion appears untouched. In representing the parents before the Supreme Court, Eric Baxter, an attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said 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. Under the Supreme Court's ruling, which appeared to follow this reasoning, California's learning goals can remain unchanged — and they could still remain mandatory policy for local school boards. However, LGBTQ-inclusive lessons would no longer be required material for any particular family that objected to the content. In opposing the Maryland parents, Alan Shoenfeld, an attorney for the Maryland school board, had argued to the justices that the goal for the storybooks was 'to foster mutual respect. The lesson is that they should treat their peers with respect.' However, writing for the high court and the six-justice majority, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that the school district's practices were a form of attempted indoctrination that could conflict with constitutionally protected religious belief. As an example, he wrote that many Americans oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, and yet 'the storybooks ... are designed to present the opposite viewpoint to young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher's instruction. The storybooks present same-sex weddings as occasions for great celebration and suggest that the only rubric for determining whether a marriage is acceptable is whether the individuals concerned 'love each other.'' This reasoning aside, the ruling could leave intact much of California's approach, although no particular family would be forced to learn the state's intended message through its LGBTQ-inclusive content. The ruling raises a score of related issues, such as how an opt-out would apply at different ages. State guidelines note that second-graders, by studying the stories of 'a diverse collection of families,' including those 'with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parents and their children ... can both locate themselves and their own families in history and learn about the lives and historical struggles of their peers.' Storybooks in elementary school are one thing, but what about social studies in high school? The California education code requires that instruction in social sciences include the role and contributions of 'lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans,' among other groups, 'to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.' The new rules of the road could be challenging to administer, as the previous experience of the Maryland district bore out. That school system had originally allowed families to opt out of lessons with LGBTQ-themed storybooks, but so many families did so that the policy was reversed. 'Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parent's religious beliefs,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. 'The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools.' How far the objections could go is another question for California. A group of parents in Los Angeles protested a story book that briefly noted: 'Some children have two mommies or two daddies.' The L.A. school board essentially ignored their objections and then-board president Jackie Goldberg read the entire storybook aloud at a televised Board of Education meeting. 'A great book,' she said after closing the cover. 'I recommend it.' Strong reaction Reaction to the Supreme Court decision arrived quickly from many quarters, including from President Trump, who called it a 'great ruling for parents.' Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the decision 'a drastic break from decades of precedent. 'For the first time now,' she said, 'parents with religious objections are empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption – ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences.' Louisiana Republica Senator Bill Cassidy, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions praised the decision: Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family's religious beliefs.' Supporters of LGBTQ+ rights spoke of another attack from the political right. 'This decision is another wolf in sheep's clothing from a Court that has entirely lost the plot on the separation of church and state,' said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of URGE (Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity). 'The objections of a few religious fundamentalists are being used to override school curriculum selected by an inclusive process driven by educators and experts. This ruling could allow the petty bigotries of any one parent to degrade the education available to all.' But Julianne Fleischer, a Murrieta-based attorney with the law group Advocates for Faith and Freedom, called the decision a 'win for religious liberty.' 'Parents — not the state — are best equipped to make decisions about what their children are taught, especially on sensitive matters involving gender and sexuality,' Fleischer said. 'The government doesn't own our children and this decision rightfully reflects not only the sacred, but legal right of parents to direct their children's religious education. Families should not be forced to choose between their sincerely held religious convictions and participation in public education.' The precedent of sex ed There is an obvious precedent for the opt-out approach: sexual education. In sex ed in California, the curriculum must recognize that people have different orientations and be inclusive of same sex relationships and also teach about gender identity and explore the harm of negative gender stereotypes. At the same time, California, like nearly every other state, allows parents to opt out of sex education classes for their children. In California that has meant families already had the option of avoiding LGBTQ+ content when it came up within the context of sex ed. However, up until now at least, parents could not opt children out of LGBTQ+ content as a standalone topic outside of sex ed. Divided religious communities The Maryland case, Mahmoud vs. Taylor, was pursued by a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents, who sought an order allowing their children to 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. The issue has divided religious communities in California, including within the Muslim community, a key constituency in pursuing the Maryland case. 'If books of LGBTQ+ themes are the excuse for the desire to opt out, then who's to say books depicting Black, Jewish and Muslim children and their traditions would not be included to be 'opted out' at a later date?' said Ani Zonneveld, the founder of Muslims for Progressive Values, a Los Angeles-based organization that was part of an amicus filing in the case opposing opt-outs. 'We are not a theocracy. Discrimination should therefore not be permitted in the name of religion.' Tarik Ata, an Orange County-based sheikh, said he supported 'parents' rights to guide their children's moral and religious education.' 'As a member of the American Muslim community, our core values — rooted in religious freedom, family, and respect for differing beliefs — guide our stance on this Supreme Court case,' said Ata, who is a board member of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, which issues guidance on religious issues to Muslim communities. 'In our tradition, parents bear the responsibility for their children's spiritual growth, and when classrooms introduce topics that conflict with deeply held convictions, families should have the right to make choices without penalty or stigma.'
Newsweek
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Signals Support for Religious Opt-Outs on LGBTQ Books
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Maryland parents who object to LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks on religious grounds can likely opt their children out of those public-school lessons, reversing lower court decisions that had sided with the Montgomery County school system. Though the decision is not a final ruling, the justices signaled strongly that the parents are likely to prevail, applying the highest level of constitutional scrutiny to the school's policy—a standard that often results in government actions being struck down. Montgomery County schools introduced the books, including "Prince & Knight" and "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," in 2022 as part of a diversity initiative. Initially, the district allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons involving the books, but that policy was later reversed, sparking protests and legal action. The case is one of several this term in which the Court has leaned toward expanding religious rights, amid a national wave of school book bans often backed by conservative groups such as Moms for Liberty. While the Education Department under President Trump dismissed past complaints about such bans, the Court's latest move reflects its growing skepticism of policies seen as limiting religious freedom. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
The Hill
27-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court's final decision day: Top cases to watch
The Supreme Court is set to announce its final slate of opinions Friday, with several blockbuster cases left to be decided before the court's summer break begins. The justices have yet to hand down major decisions expected to implicate porn website rules, LGBTQ books in schools, Louisiana's congressional map and President Trump's efforts to narrow birthright citizenship. Here's a look at the major cases left this term: Birthright citizenship Case name: Trump v. CASA Inc.; Trump v. New Jersey; Trump v. Washington What they're weighing: Can three federal judges block Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide? On Trump's first day back in the White House, he issued an executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil who don't have at least one parent with permanent legal status. Three federal judges issued nationwide injunctions blocking the directive, and the relevant federal appeals courts declined to halt those orders. The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal seeking to narrow the nationwide scope of the lower courts' rulings. It has not yet asked the justices to decide whether the order is constitutional. What it will impact: The scope of power federal judges yield. Racial gerrymandering Case name: Louisiana v. Callais; Robinson v. Callais What they're weighing: Is Louisiana's congressional map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander? This case is the latest stage of the long-running legal battle over Louisiana's congressional map design following the 2020 census. Initially, the Republican-led Legislature overrode the Democratic governor's veto to approve a map with only one majority-Black district. A district court struck it down for likely violating the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. At issue now is a new design, which the Legislature drew with an additional Black-majority district to prevent the courts from taking over. A group of white voters argued the Legislature went too far in boosting Black voter power and that it is now an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment. What it will impact: States' latitude to draw additional minority-majority districts to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. Parent opt-out options for LGBTQ material in schools Case name: Mahmoud v. Taylor What they're weighing: Must Montgomery County, Md., provide parents an opt-out option from LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools? In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools. Initially, parents could opt out, but the county later eliminated the option. A group of parents with religious beliefs at odds with the books' teachings argue the lack of an opt-out option violates their religious rights under the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause. What it will impact: When parents can opt out their children from instruction inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Age-verification laws Case name: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton What they're weighing: Is Texas's age-verification law for porn websites constitutional? Texas's H.B. 1181, passed in 2023, requires websites to verify users that are 18 years or older if the websites' content is more than one-third 'sexual material harmful to minors.' The porn industry, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, is challenging the law, which it claims is materially identical to the federal Child Online Protection Act — a measure the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2002. What it will impact: Similar laws limiting access to online pornography in nearly half the country. ObamaCare Case name: Becerra v. Braidwood Management What they're weighing: Does the structure of the Preventive Services Task Force violate the Constitution's Appointments Clause? The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover preventive services without any cost for the patient. The law empowers the federal Preventive Services Task Force, a group of medical experts, to recommend which services should be covered. A group of individuals and small businesses sued after the task force recommended covering HIV-prevention medication. The plaintiffs contend the task force members are principal officers who needed Senate confirmation under the Constitution's Appointments Clause. What it will impact: The task force's recommendations, which could all be thrown into question if the justices rule against it. Universal Service Fund Case name: FCC v. Consumers' Research; SHLB Coalition v. Consumers' Research What they're weighing: Does the Universal Service Fund violate the nondelegation doctrine? The Universal Service Fund (USF) spends $9 billion annually to subsidize telecommunications services for rural and low-income consumers. A conservative nonprofit asserts it violates the nondelegation doctrine, which prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the executive branch. Congress allows the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to determine how much telecommunications companies must contribute to the fund, which the FCC, in turn, sets based on a private company's financial projections. What it will impact: The court has not struck down a statute under the doctrine since 1935, but anti-regulatory interests are hoping the case will revitalize the doctrine and place more limits on federal agency power. CASES DECIDED Texas DNA testing law The court ruled 6-3 that Texas death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez has the legal right to sue over the state's laws governing DNA testing in a bid to test evidence he says would block his execution. Case name: Gutierrez v. Saenz What they're weighing: Can death-row inmate Ruben Gutierrez proceed in his quest for DNA testing? Texas death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez has sought DNA testing for more than a decade, claiming it will make him ineligible for the death penalty by showing he had no major role in a 1998 robbery and murder. Texas's law only allows DNA testing when favorable results would prove a defendant's innocence, which Gutierrez claims violates due process. He appealed a ruling that he has no legal standing to move forward. What it will impact: The use of DNA as a tool in capital cases. South Carolina's bid to defund Planned Parenthood The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in throwing out a challenge to South Carolina's bid to defund Planned Parenthood. Case name: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic What they're weighing: Can Planned Parenthood challenge South Carolina deeming it an unqualified provider for Medicaid recipients? Known as the free choice-of-provider provision, the Medicaid Act allows recipients to receive health services from any 'qualified' provider. In 2018, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed executive orders deeming abortion clinics unqualified. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a patient challenged McMaster's decision. The Supreme Court heard the state's arguments that private parties have no right to sue under the provision. What it will impact: Whether private parties can enforce the Medicaid Act's free choice-of-provider provision. Suing Palestine The justices unanimously upheld the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. Case name: Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization; United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization What they're weighing: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violate the Fifth Amendment? Congress in 2019 passed a law easing terror victims' ability to seek damages from the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization. The Supreme Court reviewed two lower court decisions ruling the law violates due process by forcing the groups to consent to U.S. courts' authority. What it will impact: Whether Americans injured in Middle East terror attacks can take Palestinian leadership groups to U.S. courts for damages. California's emission standard The court ruled 7-2 that fuel producers have standing to sue over the state's car emissions rule. Case name: Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA What they're weighing: Do fuel producers have standing to sue over California's car emissions rule? The Clean Air Act generally preempts state laws that regulate car emissions. But the law allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to grant California — and only California — a waiver, which the state has used to impose stricter standards. The EPA granted such a waiver during the Obama administration, the first Trump administration partially withdrew it, and the Biden administration reinstated it in 2022. Fuel producers that sued over the reinstatement appealed a lower ruling that found they have no legal standing. What it will impact: Whether the energy industry can revive its effort to axe California's stricter emission standard. Vape product challenges The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that RJ Reynolds Vapor Co.'s lawsuit against the FDA can proceed in the 5th Circuit. Case name: FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. What they're weighing: Where can vape manufacturers sue when the FDA denies a product's marketing authorization? Federal law requires vape manufacturers to receive U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval before marketing their products. 'Any person adversely affected' by a denial can sue in Washington, D.C., or the federal circuit court where they reside. In this case, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. attempted to bring a challenge in the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit by adding as plaintiffs a retail store and a trade association based there. The federal government wants the Supreme Court to shut down the tactic. What it will impact: Whether vape companies can forum shop to challenge FDA denials. Gender-affirming care The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban in a 6-3 vote along ideological lines. Case name: United States v. Skrmetti What they're weighing: Is Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors constitutional? Tennessee's S.B. 1 prohibits health care providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to allow a transgender minor to live consistent with their gender identity. The Biden administration and a group of transgender adolescents and doctors argue the law violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Trump administration abandoned the government's challenge upon taking office but urged the court to still decide the case. What it will impact: Similar laws passed by Republican-led legislatures in roughly half the country. West Texas nuclear facility The court ruled 6-3 that federal law does not provide Texas the ability to sue over the facility's license, allowing it to stand. Case name: Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas What they're weighing: Can the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license a private entity to temporarily store nuclear waste away from the reactor where it was generated? And who can sue? In 2021, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed Interim Storage Partners to store up to 5,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuels for 40 years at its West Texas facility. The commission was appealing two findings that allowed Fasken Land and Minerals and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to block the license. What it will impact: Limits on who can challenge certain federal agency actions. Clean Air Act In the first case, the court ruled 7-2 that the oil refineries must sue in the D.C. Circuit. In the second case, the court ruled 8-0 that that the states can sue in the regionally appropriate circuit. Case name: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining; Oklahoma v. EPA; and PacifiCorp v. EPA What they're weighing: What is the proper venue for lawsuits brought under the Clean Air Act? These cases involve the federal government's bid to move to Washington, D.C., a series of lawsuits brought by Republican-led states and the energy industry challenging EPA actions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is attempting to transfer the first case out of the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit, while the plaintiffs appealed in the other cases after the 10th Circuit agreed to move them to D.C. What it will impact: When more conservative-leaning courts can get involved in key environmental cases. Mistaken FBI raid In a unanimous decision, the court revived the family's lawsuit. Case name: Martin v. United States What they're weighing: Can a family whose house was mistakenly raided by the FBI seek damages from the federal government? The FBI raided an Atlanta family's home — detonating a flash-bang grenade with guns raised — in 2017 before realizing it was the wrong house. The family sued for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but lower courts tossed the challenge. What it will impact: When people injured by certain actions of federal officers can bring damages claims. Mexico's suit against US gunmakers In a unanimous decision, the court ruled Mexico's lawsuit is barred by federal law. Case name: Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos What they're weighing: Is Mexico's lawsuit against the American firearms industry barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)? Mexico sued a group of prominent American firearms companies over their guns turning up in cartel violence, seeking $10 billion and injunctive relief that would change the state of U.S. firearm regulation. But in 2005, Congress passed the PLCAA, which provides broad legal immunity to the gun industry. The Supreme Court heard the gun industry's appeal after a lower court held Mexico's lawsuit falls under an exception to the law's immunity shield. What it will impact: The scope of the gun industry's liability shield. Reverse discrimination In a unanimous decision, the court ruled straight plaintiffs don't have to clear a higher legal bar than minorities. Case name: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services What they're weighing: Do members of a majority group have to clear a higher legal bar than minority groups to win an employment discrimination claim? Marlean Ames alleges the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her because she is heterosexual. Ames unsuccessfully applied for a promotion in 2019, but the job long remained vacant until her boss, who is gay, offered the job to a gay person who didn't apply. Then, Ames says she was given a demotion and replaced by another gay person. A lower court agreed Ames met the normal requirements to bring a federal discrimination lawsuit but ruled against her, saying she needed to additionally prove 'background circumstances' since she was a member of a majority group. What it will impact: How easily white and straight individuals can bring employer discrimination suits. Catholic Charities tax exemption In a unanimous decision, the court ruled Wisconsin violated Catholic Charities' First Amendment rights. Case name: Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission What they're weighing: Can Wisconsin deny its unemployment tax religious exemption to Catholic Charities Bureau? Catholic Charities Bureau, the charitable arm of a Wisconsin diocese, is challenging the state's refusal to grant a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. The exemption requires recipients to be 'operated primarily for religious purposes.' The state and its top court held that the charity does not meet that requirement because it employs non-Catholics, provides services that could be provided by secular groups and does not proselytize. What it will impact: The extent to which states can scrutinize a group's professed religious purpose. Environmental reviews In an 8-0 decision, the court narrowed the scope of environmental review under one of the nation's bedrock environmental laws. Case name: Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo. What they're weighing: Did the Surface Transportation Board conduct a sufficient environmental review in approving an 88-mile proposed railway in Utah? In 2021, the Surface Transportation Board approved plans for an 88-mile railroad in Utah. The parties are battling over the board's review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to consider the 'reasonably foreseeable' environmental effects of a proposed action. Eagle County, Colo., and several environmental groups challenged the approval, arguing the board ignored required upstream and downstream effects. What it will impact: The scope of environmental reviews required by NEPA. Publicly funded charter schools The court failed to reach a decision after deadlocking 4-4. Case name: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond; St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond What they're weighing: Can Oklahoma officials approve the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school? In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved a contract for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would be the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) contested the school's approval. The case tests whether the school complies with the First Amendment's religion clauses. What it will impact: The bounds of religion in publicly funded education. Unreasonable force standard The Supreme Court made it easier to bring unreasonable force claims by ruling unanimously that courts should examine the 'totality of the circumstances.' Case name: Barnes v. Felix Jr. What they're weighing: What legal test governs Fourth Amendment unreasonable force claims? Ashtian Barnes was shot and killed by a police officer during a 2016 traffic stop for driving a rental car that had unpaid toll fees. Officer Roberto Felix Jr. asked Barnes to step out of the car, but the vehicle started moving forward, prompting Felix to shoot Barnes. Barnes's mother sued for damages, claiming Felix used unreasonable force against her son. The justices were to decide whether courts should assess everything that happened during the traffic stop or just the split seconds when the officer feared for his safety. What it will impact: The standard for use of deadly force by police. Ghost guns The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision upheld the Biden administration's rule. Case name: Bondi v. VanDerStok What they're weighing: Is the Biden administration's crackdown on 'ghost guns' legal? In 2022, the Biden-era Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a rule cracking down on 'ghost guns,' subjecting them to background checks, licensing and other requirements. The Supreme Court is reviewing whether that the Biden administration could do so by deeming ghost guns as 'firearms' under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The case did not implicate the Second Amendment. What it will impact: The executive branch's ability to regulate ghost guns without congressional approval.
