Latest news with #Prince&Knight
USA Today
23-04-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court appears likely to let students opt out of hearing LGBTQ+ books in class
Supreme Court appears likely to let students opt out of hearing LGBTQ+ books in class Parents say the storybooks are being used to teach ideas about gender and sexuality that go against their religion. Show Caption Hide Caption SCOTUS considers Planned Parenthood defunding case amid protests Pro and anti-abortion protesters lined up outside the Supreme Court in Washington D.C., as the justices heard a Planned Parenthood defunding case. WASHINGTON – It was clear that the Maryland school district using LGBTQ+ characters in its elementary school reading program faced an uphill battle before the Supreme Court on Tuesday even before Justice Neil Gorsuch brought up bondage. A shocked Gorsuch said that in one of the books – the alphabet primer "Pride Puppy" in which children chase their dog through a pride parade – students are 'supposed to look for the leather and bondage and things like that.' Alan Schoenfeld, an attorney for the Montgomery County School District, said there's no bondage in the book – which has since been pulled from the schools – and the leather refers to a woman's leather jacket. But he'd already appeared to have lost the court's conservative supermajority. Most of the justices sounded sympathetic to a group of Maryland parents who want their elementary school children excused from class when the books are being read. The Christian and Muslim parents, who were backed by the Trump administration, say the storybooks are being used to teach ideas about gender and sexuality that go against their religion. 'You have children of an extremely young age being indoctrinated in a topic that's known to be sensitive,' said Eric Baxter, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the parents. Officials in the school district that added the books to its reading program say exposing students to ideas that clash with their parents' religious beliefs does not violate their constitutional rights. 'Every day, in public elementary school classrooms across the country, children are taught ideas that conflict with their families' religious beliefs,' said Schoenfeld, who represents the Montgomery County School District, one of the nation's largest and most ethnically and religiously diverse districts. If the court finds parents have a First Amendment right to object every time that happens, he said, judges will be swamped with 'an infinite variety of curriculum challenges.' More: What LGBTQ+ books are at the center of a new Supreme Court case? Book dispute is one of three religious rights cases The case is one of three religious rights cases the Supreme Court is deciding in the coming weeks, and appears likely to be part of a recent trend of the court siding with religious rights advocates. The controversial books include 'Prince & Knight,' in which the handsome prince falls in love not with a princess, but with the knight who helps him defeat a dragon. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' Chloe's favorite uncle gets married to another man. The book 'Intersection Allies' features nine kids from different backgrounds, including Alejandra, who uses a wheelchair while playing basketball; Adilah, who wears a hijab in ballet class; and Kate, who prefers a superhero cape to 'skirts and frills.' Conservative justices sound sympathetic to parents Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back on the district's claim that students aren't required to believe any of the ideas promoted in the books. 'Is that a realistic concept when you're talking about a 5-year-old?' he asked. Justice Samuel Alito said, 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' has a 'clear moral message.' "Maybe it is a good message," Alito said. "But it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with." Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he didn't understand why the school discontinued allowing students to opt out of hearing the book read in class. 'The whole goal, I think, of some of our religion precedents, is to look for the win-win,' he said, 'to look for the situation where you can respect the religious beliefs and accommodate the religious beliefs while the state or city or whatever it may be can pursue its goals.' Schoenfeld, the attorney for the district, said the number of opt-out requests – dozens in one elementary school – became too difficult to administer. Teachers struggled to find enough space, supervision and alternative instruction for those students, he said. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the district's defense that the books are being used to promote respect for others and to show that the world is diverse. She said the instructional guidance included with the books is less 'about communicating respect for those who are transgender, who are gay, and more about how to think about sexuality.' `Opt-outs for everyone'? As the court's conservative supermajority grilled the school district during the approximately two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments, the three liberal justices tried to poke holes in the parents' arguments. Justice Elena Kagan said that while she was 'struck' by the content of the books for young students, the parents are asking the court to allow opt-outs for anything they find objectionable. 'Once we say something like what you're asking us to say, it will be like opt-outs for everyone,' Kagan said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said parents who object can homeschool their children or send them to private school. 'You have a choice. You don't have to send your kid to that school,' she said. But Sarah Harris, the Justice Department attorney who helped defend the parents' position, said the county has put a price on public education at the expense of parents forgoing their religious beliefs. Dueling demonstrations outside the court Outside the court, Grace Morrison, a Catholic mother, said she had no choice but to homeschool her daughter even though that meant spending tens of thousands of dollars because of her daughter's special needs. 'The school board has taken away my family's ability to raise her according to our faith,' she said. Steps away, people supporting the use of the books in the school – some wrapped in rainbow flags – waved signs urging the justices to 'Protect Inclusive Education' A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by summer.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court appears to side with parents in religious liberty dispute over storybooks
The Supreme Court's conservative majority offered strong support for parents seeking the religious liberty right to be informed about and opt their children out of reading material in elementary schools that they say conflicts with their faith. The Montgomery County, Maryland school board withdrew its original opt-out policy for books related to gender and sexuality, prompting a federal lawsuit. In a marathon two-and-a-half oral argument, the justices debated whether parents have been unfairly burdened in exercising their constitutional rights. It is one of three high-profile religious-themed cases the high court will decide this term—including disputes over tax exemptions for religious groups, and taxpayer funding for private religious charter schools—which will be argued next week. Gorsuch, Roberts Side With Left-leaning Supreme Court Justices In Immigration Ruling Justice Sonia Sotomayor and her liberal colleagues appeared to back the county's position on the storybooks. She noted a lower appeals court had refused a preliminary injunction to temporarily reinstate the opt-out policy. Read On The Fox News App "They never reached the issue of whether or not there was disruption, or what the motive was for taking away the opt out," said Sotomayor. "What they decided was that there wasn't coercion here, that there was mere exposure. I understood from the record that all that was required is that the books be put on the bookshelf. If that's all that's required, is that coercion?" But Justice Samuel Alito echoed the views of several of his conservative colleagues, about returning to the previous policy that he said most schools around the country permit. "What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?" he asked. Alito also questioned the content of several of the books raised in the appeal dealing with same-sex marriage. "I don't think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men," said Alito. "It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with." Hundreds on both sides of the issue rallied outside the court, some carrying signs like "Let Parents Parent" and "Include All Families." The suburban Washington county introduced new books with LGBTQ+ characters and themes into the elementary school curriculum in 2022, as part of the district's "inclusivity" initiative. Prosecution Calls Their Second Witness At Karen Read's Retrial For Murder One of the challenged storybooks raised in the appeals is "Prince & Knight," described as a "modern fairy tale" for ages 4-8, of the two males falling in love after working together to battle a dragon threatening their kingdom, and later marrying. Another book mentioned repeatedly in the court's public session was "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," about a little girl's reaction to her favorite relative's plans to marry a man. The school district refused to allow parents to opt out of their The school district refused to allow parents to opt out of their elementary school from the reading program - the same way older students can forego sex ed instruction. While the school board initially allowed parents to keep their children out of this curriculum, the plaintiffs say officials quickly reversed course, announcing in March 2023 that exceptions would not be granted and that parents would not be notified before the books were introduced into their children's classrooms. Officials cited increased absenteeism as one of the reasons for the change. "We felt as parents that we would present these things to our children like we always have, when they're ready to receive them. And especially a child with special needs, it's even more difficult for her to understand," said Grace Morrison, one of the plaintiffs. She and her husband, both Catholics, now homeschool their daughter, after the school refused an accommodation. "Starting to present issues of gender ideology to a child like this could be extremely confusing and damaging, let alone to the faith that we're raising her in," she told Fox News Digital. A federal appeals court ruled for the school district, concluding educators did not apply any pressure on children to abandon their religious beliefs, and "simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one's religious faith requires." State officials told the court that parents who choose to send their children to public school are not "coerced" simply by their classroom exposure there to religiously objectionable ideas. The practical feasibility of an opt-out policy at was the key focus of the high court's public session. "Once we articulate a rule like that," said Justice Elena Kagan, "it would be like, opt outs for everyone." Scotus Hears Arguments Over Parents' Fight To Opt Children Out Of Lgbtq Curriculum But Kagan also raised concerns about young children being exposed to some of the books offered in Montgomery County. "I too, was struck by these young kids picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality. I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren't all that thrilled about this." Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who noted he grew up in the affluent county and still lives there with his wife and two school-age daughters, said he was "mystified" at the why the county canceled its original opt-out policy. Some on the bench raised concerns about a sweeping "a la carte" discretion parents would have to object to what goes in schools. "What about a trans student in the classroom?" said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "There's a student who's in the class. Must the teacher notify the parents of the student's existence and give them an opt out to not be in the same classroom with this child?" Dozens of briefs were filed by advocacy groups on both sides of the issue, including competing coalitions of states and lawmakers. Many educators say they should be given deference to develop lesson plans that reflect the community at large, and that navigating a flood of individual religious rights claims would make classroom instruction and collaboration extremely problematic. Parents rights and religious groups counter impressionable children should not be forced to participate in reading activities that undermine their families' teachings and spirituality. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, representing the parents who sued, called the school policy "compelled instruction." The Trump administration is backing the parents, saying in a written brief the board's no opt-out policy "compromises parents' ability to act consistent with those [religious] beliefs regardless of whether their children feel pressured or coerced by the instruction." Click To Get The Fox News App The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor (24-297). A ruling is expected before the court's summer recess in late June. Kristine Parks and Jessica Sonkin contributed to this article source: The Supreme Court appears to side with parents in religious liberty dispute over storybooks
CNN
22-04-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Supreme Court's conservatives are poised to strike down elementary school policy denying opt-outs for LGBTQ+ books
The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday signaled it will require schools to provide opt-outs for parents who have religious objections to LGBTQ+ books read in elementary schools, an outcome that would continue the court's years-long push to expand religious rights. During more than two hours of feisty oral arguments in a high-profile case involving a suburban Washington, DC, school district, the court's six conservatives appeared to be aligned on the idea that the decision to decline opt-outs for books burdened the rights of religious parents. 'It has a clear moral message,' Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court's conservative wing, said during a spirited exchange with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 'It may be a good message,' Alito added. 'It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.' The court's liberal justices repeatedly pressed the idea that simply exposing students to ideas in a book could not possibly burden religion. A majority of the court seemed to suggest in a 2022 decision that mere exposure to ideas doesn't amount to a coercion of religious beliefs. 'Looking at two men getting married – is that the religious objection?' Sotomayor pressed the attorney for the parents who challenged the books. 'The most they're doing is holding hands.' But others on the court seemed to be open to finding a way to side with the religious parents without finding 'coercion' took place. Several of the key conservative justices in the middle of the court asked questions suggesting they are concerned about the approach taken by the Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland. After all, some of them noted, state law already requires its schools to opt students out of sex education if requested. 'As far as simply looking at something, looking at the image of Muhammad is a serious matter for someone who follows that religion, right?' Chief Justice John Roberts asked in a question geared at disputing the argument that looking at material can't burden religion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh at one point appeared to be scolding the schools' position, noting that the state of Maryland was founded on 'religious tolerance, a haven for Catholics escaping persecution in England.' 'I guess I'm surprised,' Kavanaugh told the lawyer representing the schools, 'this is the hill we're going to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty, given that history.' The arguments – which came toward the end of a Supreme Court session that has become increasingly defined by legal challenges involving President Donald Trump – at times seemed especially tense. At one point, Sotomayor attempted to interject as Alito was speaking about one of the books involved in the dispute. 'Wait a minute,' Sotomayor jumped in. 'Can I finish, please?' Alito fired back. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue in the case. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. Another book, 'Born Ready,' tells the story of Penelope, a character who likes skateboarding and wearing baggy jeans. When Penelope tells his mother that he is a boy, he is accepted. When Penelope's brother questions his gender identity, their mother hugs both children and whispers, 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.' Some of the justices appeared to be taken aback by the content. At one point, the attorney for the schools was explaining one of the books – which has since been removed from the curriculum – when Justice Neil Gorsuch jumped in. Gorsuch and several of his colleagues indicated they had read the books. 'That's the one where they are supposed to look for the leather and things – and bondage, things like that,' Gorsuch said. 'It's not bondage,' the schools' attorney, Alan Schoenfeld, interjected. 'Sex worker, right?' Gorsuch said. 'No,' Schoenfeld said. 'Drag queen?' Gorsuch continued, after being reminded of the part of the book at issue by his neighbor on the bench, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. 'The leather that they're pointing to is a woman in a leather jacket,' Schoenfeld said, who acknowledged the students had the option of looking for that at the end of the book. 'And one of the words is 'drag queen.'' Kavanaugh, who often sits at the ideological center of the court, repeatedly came back to an argument that it wouldn't be a huge problem for the district to simply allow parents to opt their children out. 'I'm not understanding why it's not feasible,' he said. But that argument has drawn sharp criticism from the schools and its allies. The schools said that an earlier effort to allow opt-outs was disruptive. And, they say, it would allow parents who object to any number of classroom discussions to opt out of a wide range of curriculum they find offense. What if, they argued, a student made a presentation in class about their same-sex parents: How could the teacher or principal be aware and handle notification of any possible presentation a parent might find objectionable? 'Once we say something like what you're asking for us to say, it'll be like opt-outs for everyone,' said liberal Justice Elena Kagan. The school district told the court that the books are used like any other in the curriculum: Placed on shelves for students to find and available for teachers to incorporate into reading groups or read-alouds at their discretion. But the parents who object to the books said they are in active use. One challenge with the case is that it reached the Supreme Court before the record was fully developed in lower courts. The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the schools 2-1 last year, ruling that the record on how the books were being used was too scant at the early stage of litigation to determine whether the material burdened the religious rights of the parents. The 6-3 conservative Supreme Court has sided with religious interests in every case it has considered in recent years – allowing a high school football coach to pray on the 50-yard line, permitting taxpayer money to be spent on religious schools and backing a Catholic foster care agency that refused to work with same-sex couples as potential parents. The parents challenging the policy were represented by the religious legal organization Becket, which has brought several successful cases to the high court in recent years and has more pending. In that sense, the Montgomery County schools were at a disadvantage before they even entered the courtroom on Tuesday. Kavanaugh seemed to flick at that point shortly before the arguments were over. 'Thank you,' Kavanaugh told Schoenfeld, sympathetically. 'It's a tough case to argue.' This story has been updated following oral arguments.
Fox News
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
The Supreme Court appears to side with parents in religious liberty dispute over storybooks
The Supreme Court's conservative majority offered strong support for parents seeking the religious liberty right to be informed about and opt their children out of reading material in elementary schools that they say conflicts with their faith. The Montgomery County, Maryland school board withdrew its original opt-out policy for books related to gender and sexuality, prompting a federal lawsuit. In a marathon two-and-a-half oral argument, the justices debated whether parents have been unfairly burdened in exercising their constitutional rights. It is one of three high-profile religious-themed cases the high court will decide this term—including disputes over tax exemptions for religious groups, and taxpayer funding for private religious charter schools—which will be argued next week. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and her liberal colleagues appeared to back the county's position on the storybooks. She noted a lower appeals court had refused a preliminary injunction to temporarily reinstate the opt-out policy. "They never reached the issue of whether or not there was disruption, or what the motive was for taking away the opt out," said Sotomayor. "What they decided was that there wasn't coercion here, that there was mere exposure. I understood from the record that all that was required is that the books be put on the bookshelf. If that's all that's required, is that coercion?" But Justice Samuel Alito echoed the views of several of his conservative colleagues, about returning to the previous policy that he said most schools around the country permit. "What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?" he asked. Alito also questioned the content of several of the books raised in the appeal dealing with same-sex marriage. "I don't think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men," said Alito. "It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with." Hundreds on both sides of the issue rallied outside the court, some carrying signs like "Let Parents Parent" and "Include All Families." The suburban Washington county introduced new books with LGBTQ+ characters and themes into the elementary school curriculum in 2022, as part of the district's "inclusivity" initiative. One of the challenged storybooks raised in the appeals is "Prince & Knight," described as a "modern fairy tale" for ages 4-8, of the two males falling in love after working together to battle a dragon threatening their kingdom, and later marrying. Another book mentioned repeatedly in the court's public session was "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," about a little girl's reaction to her favorite relative's plans to marry a man. The school district refused to allow parents to opt out of their The school district refused to allow parents to opt out of their elementary school from the reading program - the same way older students can forego sex ed instruction. While the school board initially allowed parents to keep their children out of this curriculum, the plaintiffs say officials quickly reversed course, announcing in March 2023 that exceptions would not be granted and that parents would not be notified before the books were introduced into their children's classrooms. Officials cited increased absenteeism as one of the reasons for the change. "We felt as parents that we would present these things to our children like we always have, when they're ready to receive them. And especially a child with special needs, it's even more difficult for her to understand," said Grace Morrison, one of the plaintiffs. She and her husband, both Catholics, now homeschool their daughter, after the school refused an accommodation. "Starting to present issues of gender ideology to a child like this could be extremely confusing and damaging, let alone to the faith that we're raising her in," she told Fox News Digital. A federal appeals court ruled for the school district, concluding educators did not apply any pressure on children to abandon their religious beliefs, and "simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one's religious faith requires." State officials told the court that parents who choose to send their children to public school are not "coerced" simply by their classroom exposure there to religiously objectionable ideas. The practical feasibility of an opt-out policy at was the key focus of the high court's public session. "Once we articulate a rule like that," said Justice Elena Kagan, "it would be like, opt outs for everyone." But Kagan also raised concerns about young children being exposed to some of the books offered in Montgomery County. "I too, was struck by these young kids picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality. I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren't all that thrilled about this." Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who noted he grew up in the affluent county and still lives there with his wife and two school-age daughters, said he was "mystified" at the why the county canceled its original opt-out policy. Some on the bench raised concerns about a sweeping "a la carte" discretion parents would have to object to what goes in schools. "What about a trans student in the classroom?" said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "There's a student who's in the class. Must the teacher notify the parents of the student's existence and give them an opt out to not be in the same classroom with this child?" Dozens of briefs were filed by advocacy groups on both sides of the issue, including competing coalitions of states and lawmakers. Many educators say they should be given deference to develop lesson plans that reflect the community at large, and that navigating a flood of individual religious rights claims would make classroom instruction and collaboration extremely problematic. Parents rights and religious groups counter impressionable children should not be forced to participate in reading activities that undermine their families' teachings and spirituality. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, representing the parents who sued, called the school policy "compelled instruction." The Trump administration is backing the parents, saying in a written brief the board's no opt-out policy "compromises parents' ability to act consistent with those [religious] beliefs regardless of whether their children feel pressured or coerced by the instruction." The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor (24-297). A ruling is expected before the court's summer recess in late June.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court conservatives question elementary school policy denying opt-outs for LGBTQ+ books
The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday signaled it will require schools to provide opt-outs for parents who have objections to LGBTQ+ books read in elementary schools, an outcome that would continue the court's years-long push to expand religious rights. During a feisty oral argument in a high-profile case involving a suburban Washington, DC, school district, the court's conservatives appeared to be mostly aligned on the idea that the decision to decline opt-outs for books burdened the rights of religious parents. 'It has a clear moral message,' Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court's conservative wing, said during a spirited exchange with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 'It may be a good message,' Alito added. 'It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.' The court's liberal justices repeatedly pressed the idea that simply exposing students to ideas could not possibly burden religion. A majority of the court said in a 2022 decision that mere exposure to ideas doesn't amount to a coercion of religious beliefs. But others on the court appeared to be open to a standard other than 'coercion' to find a religious burden. 'Looking at two men getting married – is that the religious objection?' Sotomayor pressed the attorney for the parents who challenged the books. 'The most they're doing is holding hands.' But several of the key conservative justices in the middle of the court asked questions suggesting they are concerned about the approach taken by the Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland. After all, some of them noted, state law already requires its schools to opt students out of sex education if requested. 'As far as simply looking at something, looking at the image of Muhammad is a serious matter for someone who follows that religion, right?' Chief Justice John Roberts asked in a question geared at disputing the argument that looking at material can't burden religion. At times the arguments seemed especially tense. At one point, Sotomayor attempted to interject as Alito was speaking. 'Can I finish?' Alito fired back. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue in the case. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. 'You're not seeking to prohibit instruction in the classroom,' conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh stressed at one point. 'You're just seeking not to be forced to participate in that instruction.' That argument – that it's easy for the schools to offer an opt-out option – has drawn sharp criticism from the schools and its allies. The schools said that an earlier effort to allow opt-outs was disruptive. And, they say, it might allow parents who object to opt out of a wide range of curriculum they find offense. 'Once we say something like what you're asking for us to say, it'll be like opt-outs for everyone,' said liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Another book, 'Born Ready,' tells the story of Penelope, a character who likes skateboarding and wearing baggy jeans. When Penelope tells his mother that he is a boy, he is accepted. When Penelope's brother questions his gender identity, their mother hugs both children and whispers, 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.' The school district told the court that the books are used like any other in the curriculum: Placed on shelves for students to find and available for teachers to incorporate into reading groups or read-alouds at their discretion. But the parents who object to the books said they are in active use. The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the schools 2-1 last year, ruling that the record on how the books were being used was too scant at the early stage of litigation to determine whether the material burdened the religious rights of the parents. This story is breaking and will be updated.
