Latest news with #MuslimParents
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Children can skip classes with LGBT books, Supreme Court rules
Parents can take their children out of school if they are reading books with gay characters in them, the Supreme Court has ruled. Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland sued to keep their elementary school children out of certain lessons when storybooks with LGBT+ characters were read, claiming it violated their constitutional rights. At the same time, the Supreme Court also ruled to block judges from thwarting Donald Trump's move to ban birthright citizenship, the 14th amendment, which makes people born on US soil automatically American regardless of parentage. The LGBT+ ruling overturned a lower court's refusal to force public schools in Montgomery County to allow some children to opt out of the classes if desired. The lower court had rejected the argument made by a group of parents who sued the school district, claiming it violated the Constitution's First Amendment protections for the free exercise of religion. The court's conservative justices were in the majority and its liberal justices dissented from the ruling. The plaintiffs in the LGBT+ case - who are Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox - said in their lawsuit that the storybooks 'promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation - with no parental notification or opportunity to opt out.' Montgomery County said it ended the opt-outs in 2023 when the mounting number of requests to excuse students from these classes became logistically unworkable and raised concerns of 'social stigma and isolation' among students who believe the books represent them and their families. Opt-outs are still allowed by the district for sex education units of health classes. Meanwhile, the birthright citizenship ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, prevents other judges in the court circuit from blocking Mr Trump's legislation. On the first day of his second term, Mr Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under the directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. It did not put the birthright citizenship order into effect or address the legality of ending birthright citizenship. Significantly, the ruling could apply to all attempts by federal judges to block any executive orders from Mr Trump, not just birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court case argued federal judges should not be able to issue nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions, in theory paving the way to allow widespread enforcement of Mr Trump's agenda with minimal legal pushback. A 1898 US Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v Wong Kim Ark set precedent for guaranteeing that children born in the US to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. The Trump administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a 'permanent domicile and residence in the US.' Following Friday's ruling, Mr Trump claimed a victory. He wrote in a Truth Social post: 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! 'Even the birthright citizenship hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our immigration process. 'Congratulations to attorney general Pam Bondi, solicitor general John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.' Mr Trump has previously argued that the 14th amendment was passed in the wake of the Civil War and was meant to protect 'babies of slaves' rather than children of illegal migrants. 'Birthright citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'suckers' that we are... It had to do with Civil War results, and the babies of slaves who our politicians felt, correctly, needed protection,' he said in a Truth Social post last month.
Reuters
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court set to rule in dispute over LGBT storybooks in school classes
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on Friday in a bid by Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland to keep their elementary school children out of certain classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read in the latest case involving the intersection of religion and LGBT rights. Parents with children in public schools in Montgomery County, located just outside of Washington, appealed after lower courts declined to order the local school district to let children opt out when these books are read. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has expanded the rights of religious people in several cases in recent years, including in cases involving LGBT people. For instance, the court in 2023 ruled that certain businesses have a right under the First Amendment's free speech protections to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings. The school board in Montgomery County approved in 2022 a handful of storybooks that feature LGBT characters as part of its English language-arts curriculum in order to better represent the diversity of families living in the county. The storybooks are available for teachers to use "alongside the many books already in the curriculum that feature heterosexual characters in traditional gender roles," the district said in a filing. The district said it ended the opt-outs in 2023 when the mounting number of requests to excuse students from these classes became logistically unworkable and raised concerns of "social stigma and isolation" among students who believe the books represent them and their families. Opt-outs are still allowed by the district for sex education units of health classes. The plaintiffs - who are Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox - said in their lawsuit that the storybooks "promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation - with no parental notification or opportunity to opt out." They said the First Amendment protects their right to instill religious beliefs and practices in their children, including on gender and sexuality that are "crucial for their children's ability to fulfill religious aspirations concerning marriage and family." Represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty conservative legal group, the parents who sued included Tamer Mahmoud, Enas Barakat, Chris Persak, Melissa Persak, Jeff Roman and Svitlana Roman, along with an organization called Kids First that seeks opt-out rights in Montgomery County. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 denied a request by the plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction. The 4th Circuit said that there was no evidence that the storybooks are "being implemented in a way that directly or indirectly coerces the parents or their children to believe or act contrary to their religious faith." The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that the 4th Circuit's decision undermined the right of parents to "protect their children's innocence and direct their religious upbringing." The school board emphasized in a brief to the court that mere exposure to content that parents find religiously objectionable does not violate the First Amendment. The Freedom From Religion Foundation secularism advocacy group in a filing to the Supreme Court supporting the school board said parents should not have the constitutional right "to ensure that all secular education materials conform with their personal religious beliefs." Such a rule would be boundless because "almost any book or idea - however commonplace or innocent - likely contradicts some religious ideals," the group said. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 22. The court's three liberal justices raised concerns about how far opt-outs for students could go beyond storybooks in public schools, offering examples of subjects such as evolution, interracial marriage or women working outside the home that might come up in classes. During the arguments, conservative Justice Samuel Alito cited one of the disputed storybooks that portrays a same-sex wedding and emphasized that the material promotes a moral message "that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with." In another religious rights case involving education, the Supreme Court in a 4-4 ruling on May 22 blocked a bid led by two Catholic dioceses to establish in Oklahoma the first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in the United States.
