Latest news with #MontgomeryCountyBoardofEducation
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Parental Opt-Outs for Controversial Books
Book battles come to the Supreme Court: Mahmoud v. Taylor is before the Court this week, dealing with the Montgomery County Board of Education, which took away both parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that celebrate transgenderism and pride parades, read to children as young as three and four. The plaintiffs are a coalition of religious parents from all different faith traditions, asking the Court to rule on "whether parents' rights to the free exercise of their faiths are burdened if public schools do not allow them to withdraw their children from classes on days" these themes are discussed, per a New York Times writeup. Oral arguments are happening now, and a decision is expected in June. At issue are the books Pride Puppy, an alphabet book about a puppy that gets lost at a Pride parade (at which there are drag queens and leather); Love, Violet, about a girl who crushes on her female classmate; Uncle Bobby's Wedding, which is self-explanatory; Born Ready, about a transgender child; Prince & Knight, a "modern fairy tale" about two boys falling in love and getting married after working together to battle a dragon; Intersection Allies which asks kids which pronouns fit them; and What Are Your Words? which tells kids that pronouns can "change like the weather." (The school district has since removed two of the books from the curriculum, though they remain in school libraries.) The lead plaintiffs are a Muslim couple—Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat—who have a son in elementary school in Montgomery County. Other plaintiffs are Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox. It's not just that these books are stocked in school libraries: In 2022, the school district added them to the language arts curriculum for students in pre-K through fifth grade. "At first, the Montgomery school system gave parents notice when the storybooks were to be discussed, along with the opportunity to have their children excused from those sessions," reports the Times. "But the school system soon eliminated the advanced notice and opt-out policy, saying it was hard to administer, led to absenteeism and risked 'exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.'" Several justices, even the liberal ones, expressed surprise at the themes and images depicted. "The Supreme Court will determine whether the school board policy burdens religious rights," reports NBC News. "The justices could then determine whether that burden violates the Constitution, or they could send the case back to lower courts to make that determination." Some of these books, like Born Ready, are teaching kids things that…are decidedly false (even if you agree with the transgenderism stuff): "Surprisingly to speakers of English and other Indo-European languages, gendering pronouns isn't actually all that common; most languages don't do it," posted Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle on X. "But the idea that this somehow means sex/gender isn't a 'big deal' in these cultures is Sapir-Whorfism run amok." Children might be walking away from these lessons thinking, for example, that Ghana is some promised land for gay rights, which is decidedly not the case. Pride Puppy, meanwhile, has a section that asks pre-schoolers (the intended audience!) to search for images from a word list that includes "intersex flag," "drag queen," "underwear," and "leather." (That book has since been removed from the curriculum.) "Despite faith differences, these parents believe the storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their children, and inconsistent with their religious beliefs," notes the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (which is representing the plaintiffs) in a press release about the case. Listen to some audio from oral arguments. "It's not just exposure to the idea, right?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked. "It's saying this is the right view of the world. This is how we think about things. This is how you should think about things. This is like 2 plus 2 is 4." "If the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with, you have a choice. You don't have to send your kid to that school," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Several of the plaintiffs have withdrawn their children from the school system as a result of this, opting for private schools and homeschooling.) It's not clear to me why Montgomery County schoolteachers and administrators would be so threatened by parents retaining their opt-out ability—unless it is, of course, about indoctrination into a particular set of ideas. Some teachers have claimed that the sheer number of opt-outs makes classroom management hard, to which my response would be: Interesting market signals you've got there! Maybe, just maybe, if the lessons are so broadly unpopular, they should be scrapped. (If I were put in this position—and I assume New York City will at some point spring this type of thing on me—homeschooling would be my move, personally.) For an opposing (and admittedly more informed on constitutional law) view, Eugene Volokh and Yale Law's Justin Driver submitted an amicus brief supporting the school system. You can read it here. Done with CECOT: Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been moved to a lower security facility in Santa Ana, El Salvador, according to Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D–Md.), who visited him last week and has publicly exerted pressure on the Trump administration to ensure Abrego Garcia's return to the U.S. is facilitated, in compliance with the Supreme Court's order. "The U.S. State Department said in an update to the federal district court in Maryland that Abrego Garcia was moved to the facility eight days before Van Hollen met with him in El Salvador last week," per a CBS News report. Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia's wife and kids have moved to a safe house, after the Department of Homeland Security posted a domestic violence protection order from 2021 that featured her address to X. "I don't feel safe when the government posts my address, the house where my family lives, for everyone to see, especially when this case has gone viral and people have all sorts of opinions," Jennifer Vasquez Sura told The Washington Post. "So, this is definitely a bit terrifying. I'm scared for my kids." "I just want my husband back, my best friend back, my kids' father back. I want our life back," she added. Cornell University dropped a popular R&B singer from its annual campus concert over what the school's president said were antisemitic and anti-Israel sentiments she had espoused," reports The New York Times. "The singer, Kehlani, has been an outspoken opponent of Israel's war in Gaza, speaking out at concerts and on social media. In a 2024 music video for the song 'Next 2 U,' Kehlani danced in a jacket adorned with kaffiyehs as dancers waved Palestinian flags in the background. During the video's introduction, the phrase 'Long Live the Intifada' appeared against a dark background." This cowardly capitulation seems likely to be related to the Trump administration's investigations of antisemitism on university campuses, as well as the freezing, earlier this month of $1 billion worth of federal funds meant for Cornell (endowment: $10.7 billion). On Tuesday, President Donald Trump began to walk back some of his comments about imposing a 145 percent tariff on Chinese goods, reports Bloomberg, mentioning he'd be willing to "substantially" reduce his tariffs on China. "We're going to have a fair deal with China," Trump told reporters yesterday. After those comments, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News that "there will be no unilateral reduction in tariffs against China. The president has made it clear China needs to make a deal with United States of America, and we are optimistic that will happen." In other words, the administration itself doesn't seem to know which policy it's sticking with. First-term approval of Trump's handling of immigration policy vs. second-term approval so far: Crucial distinctions between the normal deportation process and deportations under the Alien Enemies Act from today's Just Asking Questions guest: I think this is not aspirational, actually, and would be a sign we're further creeping toward authoritarianism: How do Chinese propagandists capitalize on domestic turmoil? This and more are covered in the latest Just Asking Questions with Michael Beckley: "Of course you know I think it's good for the administration to consider pro-natalist ideas," writes Ross Douthat on X, linking to a New York Times piece about new family policies being considered, "but right now nothing would be more pro-natalist than avoiding an unnecessary recession." (We'll ask Douthat about this and more when he comes on the show next week.) The post Parental Opt-Outs for Controversial Books appeared first on
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Leather and bondage': Supreme Court spars over details of LGBT+ children's books at center of religious freedom dispute
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by a group of religious parents from Maryland who hope to obtain the right to remove their children from classes that read storybooks featuring LGBT+ characters. In preparation for Tuesday's arguments, the nine justices read books such as Pride Puppy, which takes readers through the alphabet while sharing the story of a girl whose puppy gets loose while at a pride parade. Also, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, a story about a girl who worries she will spend less time with her favorite uncle after he marries his boyfriend. The content of the books – whether they 'promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning, and focus excessively on romantic infatuation,' as plaintiffs allege – became a point of contention during arguments. Those storybooks, and others, have led to a legal battle between a group of parents in Maryland, from various faith backgrounds, and the Montgomery County Board of Education. The dispute is about whether the school board must have an opt-out policy for children whose parents believe the themes of the book go against their religious beliefs. 'It has a clear moral message,' Justice Samuel Alito said of the book Uncle Bobby's Wedding. 'And it may be a good message. It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with,' Alito added. Justice Sonia Sotomayor sparred with Alito over the claim, noting that the children's book was not questioning the morality of same-sex marriage nor contained any images of two men kissing. 'Haven't we made very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?' Sotomayor asked. Alito responded that there could be 'a book club' with 'a debate about how Uncle Bobby's marriage should be understood.' Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson both voiced concern over how a school may implement an opt-out policy. The reason the Montgomery school district got rid of that policy was that allowing children to opt out was becoming disruptive. Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern about a potentially broad ruling, which made it difficult to draw the line between allowing school administrators to make decisions while giving parents the right to oversee their children's upbringing. But the details of the books became a memorable part of the arguments on Tuesday. Justice Neil Gorsuch honed in on details of the book Pride Puppy – referring to it as 'the one where they're supposed to look for the leather and bondage things like that.' Gorsuch asked if the book, which is read to pre-kindergarten children, featured a 'sex worker.' A lawyer for the Montgomery County Public Schools disputed the claim. He told Gorsuch that one part of the book points to a woman in a leather jacket. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who lives in Montgomery County, said he was 'surprised' that these arguments had arisen, given that the county has a diverse population. The county school board introduced the storybooks as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. "I'm surprised this is the hill to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty," Kavanaugh said. The case is the latest dispute involving religion to come before the court. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer. The Associated Press contributed to this report
The Independent
22-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
‘Leather and bondage': Supreme Court spars over details of LGBT+ children's books at center of religious freedom dispute
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by a group of religious parents from Maryland who hope to obtain the right to remove their children from classes that read storybooks featuring LGBT+ characters. In preparation for Tuesday's arguments, the nine justices read books such as Pride Puppy, which takes readers through the alphabet while sharing the story of a girl whose puppy gets loose while at a pride parade. Also, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, a story about a girl who worries she will spend less time with her favorite uncle after he marries his boyfriend. The content of the books – whether they 'promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning, and focus excessively on romantic infatuation,' as plaintiffs allege – became a point of contention during arguments. Those storybooks, and others, have led to a legal battle between a group of parents in Maryland, from various faith backgrounds, and the Montgomery County Board of Education. The dispute is about whether the school board must have an opt-out policy for children whose parents believe the themes of the book go against their religious beliefs. 'It has a clear moral message,' Justice Samuel Alito said of the book Uncle Bobby's Wedding. 'And it may be a good message. It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with,' Alito added. Justice Sonia Sotomayor sparred with Alito over the claim, noting that the children's book was not questioning the morality of same-sex marriage nor contained any images of two men kissing. 'Haven't we made very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?' Sotomayor asked. Alito responded that there could be 'a book club' with 'a debate about how Uncle Bobby's marriage should be understood.' Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson both voiced concern over how a school may implement an opt-out policy. The reason the Montgomery school district got rid of that policy was that allowing children to opt out was becoming disruptive. Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern about a potentially broad ruling, which made it difficult to draw the line between allowing school administrators to make decisions while giving parents the right to oversee their children's upbringing. But the details of the books became a memorable part of the arguments on Tuesday. Justice Neil Gorsuch honed in on details of the book Pride Puppy – referring to it as 'the one where they're supposed to look for the leather and bondage things like that.' Gorsuch asked if the book, which is read to pre-kindergarten children, featured a 'sex worker.' A lawyer for the Montgomery County Public Schools disputed the claim. He told Gorsuch that one part of the book points to a woman in a leather jacket. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who lives in Montgomery County, said he was 'surprised' that these arguments had arisen, given that the county has a diverse population. The county school board introduced the storybooks as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. "I'm surprised this is the hill to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty," Kavanaugh said. The case is the latest dispute involving religion to come before the court. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why the Supreme Court debated a children's book on same-sex marriage
The Supreme Court didn't set out to host a book club on Tuesday, but at times, its debate on religious freedom protections in public schools felt better suited for an English class than a courtroom. Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor, in particular, wrestled with the themes and central message of a children's book called 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' as they considered whether religious parents should be able to opt their kids out of certain language arts lessons. The book, which is one of several that sparked the case the Supreme Court was hearing, features a little girl named Chloe who is upset about her favorite uncle getting married. Alito and Sotomayor agreed that the book shows Chloe's family encouraging her to be happy for Uncle Bobby and his same-sex partner. But only Alito thought the plot raised religious freedom concerns. 'Chloe ... has reservations about (the marriage) and she's told she shouldn't have any reservations about it. That's a clear moral message. It's a clear moral message ... that a lot of religious people would disagree with,' he said. Sotomayor, on the other hand, argued that Uncle Bobby's sexuality wasn't central to the story. The point was that Chloe was worried about him having less time for her, she said. The Supreme Court's eventual ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor may not mention 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' by name. But it likely will hinge on how many justices adopt Alito's point of view that it's possible for a story with a gay or transgender character to substantially burden someone's faith. Mahmoud v. Taylor stems from a conflict between the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland and a group of Muslim, Jewish and Christian parents with kids in some of the district's elementary schools. The parents filed the lawsuit after school officials took away the option of opting out of its inclusive storybook program. Parents say opt outs are required by the First Amendment's free exercise clause since classroom discussions on LGBTQ issues interfere with the religious messages they're seeking to pass on to their kids. School officials reject that claim, arguing that families don't have a First Amendment right to avoid stories with LGBTQ characters. The goal of books like 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' is to encourage respect for one's neighbor, not to influence readers' beliefs about marriage, they say. The lower courts refused to grant the parents a preliminary injunction, which is why they sought help from the Supreme Court. The justices agreed to take up the case and consider whether the school district must restore its original opt out option. Here are three key questions that emerged during oral arguments on Tuesday: Three words came up again and again during Tuesday's debate: coercion, exposure and burden. All three were used as the justices attempted to sort out whether the storybooks actually interfere with parents' religious freedom rights or if, instead, the parents are being too sensitive about references to LGBTQ issues. The court's three more liberal justices repeatedly challenged the parents' interpretation of past rulings on the First Amendment, arguing that hearing stories about gay or transgender characters is quite different than being coerced into changing your beliefs. 'Haven't we made very clear that mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?,' Sotomayor asked at one point. By comparison, the more conservative justices seemed much more willing to see the storybook program as a burden on the free exercise of religion. They pushed the attorney for the school district to explain why the option of opting out is now off the table. Justice Brett Kavanaugh went so far as to imply that the district had abandoned a win-win situation. Alan Schoenfeld, the attorney for the school district, said the opt outs were unsustainable, since some schools were having to come up with alternate activities for dozens of students at a time. If the Supreme Court rules for the religious parents, that challenge will spread to school districts across the country essentially overnight, he said, since such a ruling would empower parents to ask for opt outs from all sorts of lessons. 'Once this court constitutionalizes that prerogative, you're in a completely different world,' Schoenfeld said. The more liberal justices seemed to agree that a ruling for the parents would push the country down a slippery slope and lead to future lawsuits about whether teachers need to seek parental approval before they talk about anything faith-related, like interfaith marriage, divorce or even women in power. 'Tell me where you're going to draw the line,' Sotomayor said to the attorney representing the religious parents, Eric Baxter from Becket. Baxter said the lawsuit is about restoring the status quo, not creating chaos nationwide. School districts across the country allow families to opt out of lessons related to gender and sexuality without facing curriculum disruptions, he said. Baxter added that, even if the Supreme Court forces Montgomery County to reinstate the opt out option, there would still be a limit on what religious families could demand. 'No student has the right to tell a school what to teach or to tell other students what to learn,' he said. Although it was only briefly discussed on Tuesday, the justices will be wrestling with the school district's attitude toward religious families as they put together the ruling in the case, which is expected by early July. Baxter said some school board members made unacceptable, anti-religious comments when they faced pushback over the storybook program, the kind of comments that often come up when someone raises religious freedom concerns about policies on LGBTQ rights. 'The board accused them of using their religious beliefs as a reason to hate,' Baxter said. Schoenfeld acknowledged that some 'intemperate' language was used, although he said the comments came after the opt out policy was changed. The justices' views on the comments — and beliefs about when they were made — may end up being significant. In some recent religious freedom cases, including Masterpiece Cakeshop, the 2018 case about a Christian baker in Colorado, the Supreme Court has based its ruling on public officials' attitudes toward religion instead of answering the constitutional question that was raised.
CBS News
22-04-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Supreme Court seems likely to side with parents over opt-outs for storybooks on gender identity, sexuality
Washington — A sharply divided Supreme Court appeared likely to require a Maryland school board provide parents with the ability to opt their elementary school-age children out of instruction featuring storybooks that address gender identity and sexual orientation. At issue in the court fight between a group of families and the Montgomery County Board of Education is whether public schools unconstitutionally burden parents' First Amendment right to exercise their religion freely when they require children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality that violate the families' religious beliefs. After more than two hours of arguments, the court's conservative majority seemed ready to side with the families. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who lives in Montgomery County, Maryland, invoked the state's founding and said the county in particular has been a "beacon" of religious liberty and tolerance. He told Alan Schoenfeld, who argued for the school board, he was "surprised" given that history that "this is the hill you're going to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty." "What is the big deal about allowing them to opt-out of this?" Justice Samuel Alito asked, noting that the county allows parents to request their children be excused from other areas of instruction, such as sexual education or Halloween or Valentine's Day celebrations. "What is infeasible about doing that?" Kavanaugh echoed Alito, saying, "I'm not understanding why it's not feasible" for schools to excuse children from instruction that violate their families' religious beliefs. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia allow for parental opt-outs or require opt-ins before students participate in sex education. Montgomery County, home to Maryland's largest public school system with more than 160,000 students, also had an opt-out policy for parents with religious objections to classroom instruction or activities so long as the requests did not become "too frequent or burdensome," according to court papers. After Maryland enacted rules seeking to promote "educational equity," the Montgomery County Education Board introduced "LGBTQ-inclusive" storybooks for elementary school students into its English Language Arts curriculum. The district said it supplemented its language arts books with a handful of stories "in order to better represent all Montgomery County families." Among the five books incorporated, which are at issue in the case, were "Born Ready," about a transgender elementary-aged child, and "Prince & Knight," about a prince who falls in with and marries a knight. Several of the justices acknowledged that they had read the picture books that were included in the curriculum, and Alito at one point even read from one, "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which discusses gay marriage. The board adopted the lessons in 2022, but allowed parents to opt their children out of reading and instruction involving the storybooks. But in March 2023, the Montgomery County school board announced that families would no longer receive advanced notice of when the books would be read and would not be able to have their kids excused from the instruction. The board said in court filings that the opt-outs had become "unworkable," as some schools had high numbers of absences, and all faced "substantial hurdles" in using the books while honoring opt-out requests, as teachers would have to manage the removal of excused students from class and plan alternative activities for them. That decision, however, sparked backlash within the community — more than 1,000 parents signed a petition that called on the board to restore the notice and opt-outs, and dozens protested the books at board meetings as violating their religious beliefs. The school board then revised its Religious Diversity Guidelines to limit the circumstances when students can be excused to noncurricular activities or free-time events that conflict with their family's religious practices. A group of three families filed a lawsuit against the Montgomery County Board of Education, arguing that denial of the notice and opt-outs violated their right to exercise their religion freely under the First Amendment because it overrode their freedom to direct the religious upbringing of their children. The families — who are Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox — sought a preliminary injunction that would've required the school board to provide advance notice and the chance to opt their children out of instruction that involved the books. But a federal district judge in Maryland denied the request, finding that the no-opt-out policy did not burden the families' religious exercise. The parents' inability to excuse their children from instruction with the storybooks doesn't coerce them into violating their religious beliefs, the court found, as they can still teach their kids about their convictions regarding sexuality, marriage and gender. A divided panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit also found that there was no burden on the families' free exercise of religion because there was no evidence they were compelled to change their religious beliefs or conduct. The families asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, and the high court in January agreed to do so. The Trump administration is backing the parents in the case, arguing that the board burdened parents' religious exercise by forcing them to choose between violating their religious beliefs or forgoing public education. In filings with the high court, lawyers for the parents also said that Montgomery County is presenting them with an "impossible" choice. The parents, they said, "must subject their children to instruction intended to disrupt their religious beliefs or forgo the benefits of a public education at the sizeable cost of either paying for private school, homeschooling, or facing government fines and penalties." Additionally, they argued that suspending the notice and opt-outs created "topsy-turvy categorizations" in which a 14-year-old can be excused from instruction on gender and sexuality during sex education, but a 4-year-old has to sit through similar instruction as part of the English Language Arts curriculum. Eric Baxter, who argued on behalf of the families, told the justices that Montgomery County is an "extreme outlier" for declining to allow parents to excuse their children despite their religious objections to the content. He said the instruction featuring the books with LGBTQ-themes was "clearly indoctrinating" students. The families also said that at least one member of the board demonstrated religious hostility toward them, claiming they likened them to "white supremacists" and "xenophobes." Justice Neil Gorsuch repeatedly raised the comments, and asked Shoenfeld if they "suggest a hostility toward religion." Shoenfeld said the remarks were taken out of context but acknowledged they were "intemperate." Kavanaugh said that as a lifelong resident of Montgomery County, he was "mystified" by how the dispute over opt-outs exploded in the way that it did and said that the county "stands alone" both with the types of books added to the curriculum for young students and in not allowing parents to opt their children out of the instruction. The school system has said that its teachers were expressly forbidden from using the books to pressure students to change their religious beliefs, and argued that while it tried to accommodate parents' requests to opt their children out of the instruction, doing so eventually became "unworkably disruptive." Lawyers for the school district also argued that exposure to content that parents object to on religious grounds is not the same as impermissibly coercing students to disavow their religious practices. The parents, they said, didn't put forward any evidence that their children were penalized for their religious beliefs, were asked to affirm views contrary to their faith, or were prohibited from engaging in religious practice. Schoenfeld told the justices that the books sought to "foster mutual respect in a pluralistic community." It was unclear whether the court would adopt a firm rule that specifies when certain public-school instruction crosses the line from mere exposure to objectionable content into impermissible coercion of students. The justices raised several examples to discern the point at which the right to free exercise of religion would be burdened. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether a parent could request an opt-out for their child whose teacher shows photos from their same-sex wedding or talks about it, or whether a teacher would have to notify a parent if their child had a transgender classmate. "This is not just about books," she said, adding that the issue was exposure to ideas that families have a sincerely held religious objection to. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Baxter in whether the families were objecting to the "exposure to the ideas" portrayed in the books and asked whether they would be pursuing their claim if the storybooks were just on the shelf at the library, rather than incorporated into instruction. The school board has warned that accepting the parents' argument that the no-opt-out policy burdened their religious exercise could have harmful effects for public education as a whole. "Crediting petitioners' burden theory would not only contravene constitutional text, history, and precedent, but also — as courts have long recognized — 'leave public education in shreds' by entitling parents to pick and choose which aspects of the curriculum will be taught to their children," they wrote in court papers . The American Civil Liberties Union also said that under the parents' assertions, public school families could request exemptions from an array of curricular requirements because of their religious beliefs, including objecting to lessons on major historical figures who are LGBTQ. "In sum, requiring public schools to exempt students from secular instruction that they or their parents may find objectionable for religious reasons could throw public schools into disarray, effectively 4 forcing them to tailor their educational materials to align with the religious beliefs of individual students and/or their parents," ACLU lawyers wrote in a filing . A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by early July.
