Latest news with #TamerMahmoud
New York Post
22-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Supreme Court signals support for parents who object to LGBTQ books in Maryland school system
The Supreme Court indicated Tuesday it would rule in favor of a group of parents who sued a suburban Maryland school board over its refusal to allow parents of elementary school children to opt out of classes with LGBTQ-themed storybooks. Plaintiffs argue that the school system in Montgomery County, just outside Washington, DC, cannot require children to sit through lessons involving the books if their family has religious objections. 'The [school] board does not dispute that under its theory, it could compel instruction using pornography, and parents would have no rights,' argued Eric Baxter, an attorney for parent Tamer Mahmoud. Advertisement 'The First Amendment demands more. Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters.' Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) approved certain LGBTQ-themed curriculum books in late 2022. Initially, MCPS allowed an opt-out for parents with religious concerns, but by March of 2023, it reversed course, citing concerns about absenteeism and administrative burdens. 4 Parents sued Montgomery County Public Schools over its decision to scrap the opt-out. Courtesy of Grace Morrison Advertisement A group of parents from Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox faiths, sued the school district, arguing the lack of an opt-out system trampled upon their religious rights as parents. Both a federal judge and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously backed the school board in denying a preliminary injunction sought by the parents. The 4th Circuit concluded the plaintiffs needed to show that their children were being coerced to act differently than their religious beliefs. 'We don't have to decide whether you get the opt-out,' conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett mused at one point. 'We just have to decide if the 4th Circuit accurately defined what a burden is.' Later, Barrett expressed concerns that the LGBTQ-laced classroom instructions aren't merely trying to expose students to different ideas, but are about trying to impress upon students that 'this is the right view of the world' and 'how you should think about things.' Advertisement At times, some of the conservative justices sounded uneasy about the content of some of the books in question. 4 Supreme Court justices referenced some of the books in question during oral arguments. Simon & Schuster 'That's the one where they were supposed to look for the leather and bondage things like that,' Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about the 'Pride Puppy' book for pre-K students, which was later removed from the curriculum by the board. 'Do you think it's fair to say that all that is done in 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' is to expose children to the fact that there are men who marry other men?' Justice Samuel Alito asked Baxter, before answering his own question. Advertisement 'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with.' MCPS attorney Alan Schoenfeld argued that the school system already provides parents with ample opportunity to provide input. 'The school board here is democratically elected,' he contended. 'The entire process of adopting this curriculum is open and transparent. These books are on review for 30 days before they're even made part of the curriculum. There's then a multi-level appeal process. 'There's plenty of opportunity for parental insight.' 4 Activists in the Christian and Muslim communities argued that the lessons violated their religious rights. MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Justice Brett Kavanaugh said at one point that he was 'a bit mystified, as a lifelong resident of the county, how it came to this.' 'The other Maryland counties have opt-outs for all sorts of things,' the justice added. Schoenfeld explained that there had been 'dozens of students walking out' of classes and that schools were struggling to figure out the logistics of alternative spaces and supervision for them. Advertisement 'They don't do it for all sorts of other opt-outs,' the attorney countered. 'There's a limited universe of things that students can opt out from.' 'The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum,' Alito rejoined. 'They're just saying, 'Look, we want out.' Why is that not feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?' 4 Protesters on both sides of the issue demonstrated outside of the Supreme Court. FOX NEWS Schoenfeld sought to impress upon the high court that schools across the country teach a variety of lessons that conflict with parents' beliefs. Advertisement 'Children encounter real and fictional women who forego motherhood and work outside the home,' he said. 'Children read books valorizing our nation's veterans who fought in violent wars. Each of these things is deeply offensive to some people of faith.' Liberal justices seemed particularly concerned about redefining the 'burden' definition. 'How do we make very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?' Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Baxter at one point. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stressed that parents 'can choose to put their kid elsewhere' and are not required to send their children to public schools if they disagree with what is being taught. Advertisement 'I guess I'm struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with,' she admitted. 'You have a choice, you don't have to send your kids to that school.' Jackson also listed a series of hypotheticals — such as a gay teacher talking to children about their spouse or transgender students — and got Baxter to admit that he probably would not support an opt-out in those scenarios. Justice Elena Kagan suggested attorneys for the parents 'did not want to draw lines' on where an opt-out would not be honored. Advertisement 'You're still not giving me anything other than if it's in a school and a sincere religious parent has an objection, that objection is always going to result in an opt-out, no matter what the instruction is like,' she vented. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor by the end of June.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on student opt-outs for LGBTQ-related school curriculum
April 22 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will rule on whether parents have the right to opt out their kids from school curriculum involving LGBTQ-related books. On Tuesday, the justices will begin oral arguments in the case with a group of multi-faith parents from Montgomery County, Md., who argue that their children should be permitted to opt out based on religious grounds under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In the case, which began in 2022, the eight-member Montgomery County school board contends that education's purpose is to expose students to a mix of people, culture and ideas and that the Constitution does not grant a student the right to skip a lesson allegedly incompatible with their supposed personal beliefs. In addition, educators say it would be a logistical nightmare to accommodate a student over a book versus an entire opted-out class like sex education, particularly for Montgomery County's more than 160,000 students. "Research suggests that providing an opt out from an LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum reduces the positive effects this curriculum has on school climate," court documents stated, adding the proposed opt out would "diminish the efficacy of the Board's LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum, undermining its efforts to protect LGBTQ students." Last year in March, the American Library Association said the number of book bans targeting public libraries in 2023 was up 92%, which nearly doubled from 2022. One book at the center of this case, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, featured a gay character getting married, while Born Ready is about a transgender child who identified as a boy. Its lead plaintiffs, Muslim parents Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat along with a group of parents of other religious faiths, were not challenging the curriculum itself but its lack of opt-out options. They allege that "compelling their elementary-age children to participate in instruction contrary to their parents' religious convictions violated the Free Exercise Clause," according to court documents. The case questions whether "pubic schools burden parents' religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents' religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?" Meanwhile, lower court rulings have sided with Montgomery County's school board. A decision could arrived as early as June from the 6-3 majority conservative supreme court.
The Guardian
22-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US supreme court weighs efforts to exempt elementary schoolers from LGBTQ+ books
The US supreme court is considering on Tuesday a bid by Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland to keep their elementary school children out of certain classes when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are read in the latest case involving the intersection of religion and LGBTQ+ rights. The justices are hearing arguments in an appeal by parents with children in public schools in Montgomery county, located just outside of Washington, after lower courts declined to order the local school district to let children opt out when these books are read. The plaintiffs – including Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents – contend that the school board's policy of prohibiting opt-outs violates the US constitution's first amendment protections for free exercise of religion. The supreme court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has steadily expanded the rights of religious people in recent years, including in cases involving LGBTQ+ 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 Montgomery country district in 2022 approved a handful of storybooks that feature lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender characters as part of its English language arts curriculum in order to better represent the diversity of families in the county, the district said in court filings. The storybooks do not instruct about gender or sexuality and 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. Opt-outs are still allowed by the district for sex education units of health classes. As the district found the number of requests to excuse students from classes in which these storybooks were read logistically unworkable, it announced in 2023 a policy barring opt-outs from instruction using the storybooks. Represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty conservative legal group, the parents who have sued include 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 plaintiffs 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'. The Richmond, Virginia-based fourth US circuit court of appeals in 2024 denied their bid for a preliminary injunction, saying that at this early stage of the case there is 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 fourth circuit's decision undermines the right of parents to 'protect their children's innocence and direct their religious upbringing'. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion The district emphasized in a brief to the court that no parent or child is coerced to alter their religious convictions or practices, and 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 micromanage their children's education 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. In a brief backing the parents in the case, a group of religious liberty scholars wrote that the supreme court should correct the 'widespread failure of the lower courts to understand the burden on parental religious rights that can result from mandatory school instruction on highly fraught topics'. The supreme court is expected to rule by the end of June. The justices are poised to decide multiple cases involving religious rights this term. Next week, it will hear a major case involving a bid to establish in Oklahoma the nation's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court weighs parents' objections to LGBTQ content in elementary schools
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday considers the latest dispute that pits religious rights against LGBTQ rights as the justices weigh parents' objections over books made available in a school district's elementary schools that feature stories about gay and transgender characters. At issue are books included in the English language arts curriculum in Montgomery County, Maryland. The dispute arose in 2022 after the school board in Montgomery County, a large and diverse jurisdiction just outside Washington, decided it wanted more storybooks reflecting LGBTQ stories to better reflect the people who live there. One book, "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," features a gay character who is getting married. Another, called "Born Ready," is about a transgender child who wants to identify as a boy. Some parents objected on religious grounds under the Constitution's First Amendment, saying their children should be able to opt out of any exposure to the content. The lead plaintiffs are Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat — a Muslim couple who have a son in elementary school. Other plaintiffs are members of the Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox churches. They are not challenging the curriculum itself, just the lack of an opt-out. A federal judge and the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the school board. The Supreme Court will determine whether the school board policy burdens religious rights. 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. The parents, represented by the religious liberties group Becket, say that under Supreme Court precedent they have a right to opt out of any instruction that would interfere with their children's religious development. The school board is 'compelling instruction designed to indoctrinate petitioners' children against their religious beliefs,' the parents' lawyers wrote. The parents have the backing of the Trump administration. Lawyers for the school board said in court papers that there is no attempt to coerce children and that there was an attempt to allow an opt-out "until doing so became unworkably disruptive." The lawyers wrote that the court record is "devoid of evidence that petitioners or their children are compelled or pressured to modify their religious beliefs or practice." The school board also asserts that although the books are in classrooms and available for children to pick up, teachers are not required to use them in class. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that often backs religious rights, including in cases involving conflicting arguments made by LGBTQ rights advocates. In 2023, for example, the court ruled in favor of a Christian web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings. The court is hearing another major religious case next week when it considers whether to approve the country's first public religious charter school. In its next term, which starts in October, the court will consider a challenge to state laws that ban "conversion therapy" aimed at young people questioning their sexual orientations or gender identities. This article was originally published on
Reuters
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court to weigh objections to elementary school LGBT storybooks
WASHINGTON, April 22 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider on Tuesday 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. The justices are due to hear arguments in an appeal by parents with children in public schools in Montgomery County, located just outside of Washington, after lower courts declined to order the local school district to let children opt out when these books are read. The parents - who include Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox plaintiffs - contend that the school board's policy of prohibiting opt-outs violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections for free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has steadily expanded the rights of religious people 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 Montgomery Country district in 2022 approved a handful of storybooks that feature lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender characters as part of its English language-arts curriculum in order to better represent the diversity of families in the county, the district said in court filings. The storybooks do not instruct about gender or sexuality and 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. Opt-outs are still allowed by the district for sex education units of health classes. As the district found the number of requests to excuse students from classes where these storybooks were read logistically unworkable, it announced in 2023 a policy barring opt-outs from instruction using the storybooks. 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 plaintiffs 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." The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 denied their bid for a preliminary injunction, saying that at this early stage of the case there is 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 undermines the right of parents to "protect their children's innocence and direct their religious upbringing." The district emphasized in a brief to the court that no parent or child is coerced to alter their religious convictions or practices, and 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 micromanage their children's education 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. In a brief backing the parents in the case, a group of religious liberty scholars wrote that the Supreme Court should correct the "widespread failure of the lower courts to understand the burden on parental religious rights that can result from mandatory school instruction on highly fraught topics." The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June. The justices are poised to decide multiple cases involving religious rights this term. Next week, it will hear a major case involving a bid to establish in Oklahoma the nation's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school.
