Latest news with #UncleBobby'sWedding
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
"A court captured by far-right conspiracy theories": How the GOP drove the Supreme Court off a cliff
"Strict Scrutiny" cohost Leah Litman has the profile of a person who, in previous eras, would seem like a defender of the Supreme Court. She's a law professor at the University of Michigan and once worked as a law clerk for former Justice Anthony Kennedy. In recent years, she's become one of the most outspoken critics of how the current iteration of the nation's highest court has abandoned good faith readings of the law, basic legal reasoning, and even facts in pursuit of a far-right agenda. In her new book, "Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes," Litman chronicles the decline of this once-venerated institution. She spoke with Salon about her book and how recent cases suggest the court is getting even more unhinged in this second Donald Trump administration. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. I listened to, and I was struck by how victimized acted during the entire thing. He felt he was being oppressed by this children's book called "Uncle Bobby's Wedding." It perfectly illustrated the thesis of your book, which is about how much the jurisprudence of the current Supreme Court is all vibes and grievance. What were you thinking when you listened to those arguments? I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. The justices keep providing me with so much content and so much material after I finished the manuscript. It perfectly reflects this notion of conservative grievance: the idea that social conservatives, religious conservatives, all the core parts of the Republican constituency, are the real victims. And there's no discrimination except against white evangelical Christians. That worldview was on display. This is a children's book about a young girl being concerned that when her favorite uncle got married, he'd have less time for her. Justice Alito read it as a personal attack and rank discrimination against religious conservatives like him because her favorite uncle happened to be getting married to a man. Apparently, acknowledging that some men marry men whom they love is discrimination against Sam Alito and people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. It was stunning in its clarity. I don't know what's going on in his head, but it's hard to use any word but "lying" to describe his claims during arguments. He said that the little girl in the book objected to the marriage cause she was homophobic, when she loved her gay uncle, and just didn't want him to have less time for her. The projection is very telling. Justice Alito read this book, where Chloe is concerned about her uncle's upcoming wedding, and Justice Alito seemed to read into Chloe his own views. He imagined Chloe saying something like, "Mommy, I have a sincere religious objection to Uncle Bobby's marriage to a man." And then he interpreted her mother as saying something like, "No, Chloe, that's bad. You can't think that. Men get to marry men because that's the future liberals want." Of course, Chloe and her mother said no such thing. He read the mere acknowledgement that a man would marry a man as an expression of hostility to his worldview, which is that same-sex marriages shouldn't exist at all. Acknowledging their existence, acknowledging the existence of LGBT people, he perceives as an attack on him, because the jurisprudence he is fashioning is all about bringing about a world where gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are not allowed to have civil rights and are not allowed to live been this myth for a long time that there might be liberal judges and conservative judges, but they all adhere to the same belief that they should follow the facts and they should follow the law. Brett Kavanaugh talked about it as "calling balls and strikes." To reject the obvious reading of a children's picture book suggests that's not the case. How far have they drifted from those basic principles? Oh, I would say quite far. It wasn't just Sam Alito, although he is the best example and encapsulation of this conservative grievance, bad vibes, fringe theory direction that the Supreme Court is headed in. During the same oral argument, you had Neil Gorsuch insisting that the book "Pride Puppy" involved a sex worker who was into bondage. If you read the book, there is a woman wearing a leather jacket, and she's at a Pride parade. Neil Gorsuch took from that and insisted, no, the book actually involves bondage and sex workers. Examples are myriad. In the 303 Creative case, which also concerned LGBTQ equality, you have the court insisting the case involved a wedding website designer with sincere religious objections, who was going to be forced to make a wedding website for a same-sex wedding. The person did not specialize in wedding website design. She did not sell her business as a designer of websites from a religious perspective. And the one alleged request she received for a same-sex wedding was submitted by someone who claimed they never submitted such a request, who was a website designer themselves, and was a man married to a woman. The Supreme Court has been running on these fast and loose characterizations of the facts for a while. We all can have a good laugh at the idea that "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" is a personal attack on people who don't believe in marriage equality. But the uncomfortable reality is that a conspiracy theory-laden universe is in full swing at the Supreme Court. It's a court captured by far-right conspiracy theories. That worldview interferes with their assessment of the law, their assessment of the facts, and their ability to engage with reality. Sam Alito and, to a large extent, Clarence Thomas get the most attention for having their brains poisoned by this stuff. But a lot of people think Chief Justice John Roberts isn't so bad. Look, there are differences between the Republican appointees, but the reality is, on the big picture level, they are in lockstep in important ways. Chief Justice Roberts, this purported moderate institutionalist, struck down the key provision of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County versus Holder by inserting a misleading ellipsis into a quotation he drew from one of his previous opinions. He inserted this ellipsis, so the sentence meant the literal opposite of what it had actually said. This is the same Chief Justice who wrote the sweeping immunity ruling that effectively placed the president above the law. And people ask why Donald Trump thinks he's above the law. Some of the president's more expansive, outlandish assertions of executive power draw from this idea of the unitary executive theory, which is the idea that the Constitution gives the president and the president alone all of the executive power. It's that idea that the president relied on to fire inspectors general, to fire the heads of commissions like the National Labor Relations Board or the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. Guess who wrote that the Constitution puts all of the executive power in the president: John Roberts. He was writing the same for the Reagan administration back when he was a lawyer in the Reagan administration. People mistake the forest for the trees. It's more interesting to focus on the differences between the Republican appointees. It is closer to reality to acknowledge that on these super high-profile, ideologically salient cases, the Republican justices are where the Republican Party is. There's a recent case where reporting suggests that a lawsuit regarding a bus full of Venezuelan immigrants that they were trying to send to that El Salvador in prison. The rest of the court stepped in and stopped Alito from doing that and rushed out a decision that ended up probably saving those men's lives. What is your read on that particular situation? Some lower courts had blocked the government from relying on the Alien Enemies Act to summarily expel people to this foreign megaprison in El Salvador. The case went up to the United States Supreme Court on a request for emergency relief, blocking the government from carrying out these renditions. The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration and released its order blocking the deportation before Alito finished his dissent. In doing so, they likely saved these men from being sent to El Salvador because they got the order out before the men could be transported. What to read from that? It's a little hard to know. I'd imagine that the Supreme Court is responding in part to the administration's blatant disregard, if not outright defiance of their previous order in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, which told the administration to facilitate Mr. Abrego Garcia's return. The administration's response has basically been, "make me." Then Stephen Miller characterized the decision in Abrego Garcia as a unanimous win for the administration. That's definitely not true. As to whether they thought they can't wait on Justice Alito, because he is trying to buy the Trump administration time to deport these men, I'm not sure. Trump got this immunity decision, and he seems to recognize that, as you argue in this book, these six Republican judges are going to bend over backwards to misinterpret the law to help him out. There is another case that just got going, where 12 Democratic attorneys general are suing, claiming Trump's tariffs are illegal. Which seems right to me, though I'm not a lawyer. It will be another interesting test of whether or not the Supreme Court has a limit. What are your thoughts on that case? Because it is a situation where Trump's agenda is so different than the standard Republican agenda. If you look back at the first Trump administration, there was this case challenging the entire Affordable Care Act. The state of Texas sued on this cockamamie theory that the entire Affordable Care Act had become unconstitutional when Congress reduced the penalty for not having health insurance to $0. And the Trump administration joined Texas's lawsuit, to ask the court to strike down the entirety of the Affordable Care Act. That was a Trump thing. It was not the consensus position of the Republican caucus, which had voted down efforts to repeal the entirety of the Affordable Care Act. In that case, the Supreme Court rejects the Trump administration's request. That's another example where the zeitgeist of the Republican Party is not exactly tracking what Donald Trump is asking for. And in those instances, you have a Republican court majority that is probably closer to the median Republican in Congress or than they are to Donald Trump. Now, that means, of course, they are enabling Trump, left and right and all over the place, you know, and are on board with a lot of his agenda. But it does mean there are some differences. It seems to me that the Supreme Court often oversteps with regard to this Christian nationalist agenda. Or is it larger than that? I think it is larger than that. I agree that one of the ideas they are most committed to is that conservative Christians are the victims of a society that doesn't share their views. But they are also very committed to the idea that white conservatives accused of racial discrimination are very put upon. That idea has inflected a lot of their jurisprudence on voting rights. This term, they are hearing another Voting Rights Act case that asks them to say it's actually unconstitutional racial discrimination for states to try to ensure that black voters are represented in districting. It's super transparent in the cases of religion, but it's definitely present in other areas of law as well. When I'm chatting with people on social media, I find the Supreme Court situation is the source of almost nihilistic pessimism. There are six Republican-appointed justices. As you said, they are in lockstep with this increasingly ridiculous, paranoid agenda. There is no sense that will change any time soon. They sometimes seem to have king-like powers. Should people feel this hopeless? Are there reasons to feel that this can get better? I understand the feeling of hopelessness. I definitely feel depressed sometimes. But, just like we tell people not to obey in advance for the Trump administration, don't obey in advance for the Supreme Court, either. If you have a great law or policy that you think will meaningfully improve people's lives, and you think it's constitutional, do it. Make them strike it down. Make them pay the price for taking away people's healthcare, voting rights, and whatnot. Second, if you are that convinced that the Supreme Court is such a destructive force on society, you should try to convince other people of that as well. If we do that, we might be in a situation where the next time progressives, the Democratic Party, the left have political power, they could exercise that political power in ways that reduce the destructive potential and powers of this Supreme Court. The other thing that gives me hope is the polling on the Trump administration on immigration and other matters, and especially the polling on the Supreme Court. A majority of the country is not on board with their wild grievance-laden, retributive agenda. And so that gives me hope. Just because these weirdos on the Supreme Court are doing this doesn't mean the rest of the country is OK with it. How much of this is Mitch McConnell's fault? Mitch McConnell is a key figure in my book for a reason. Even when Republicans aren't on board with what Trump is doing, the Republican Party and people like Mitch McConnell own absolutely everything he is doing. They have enabled him and they continue to do so. It doesn't really matter if Mitch McConnell is occasionally voting against the nominee, voting against tariffs, or whatnot. He held open a Supreme Court seat to give Donald Trump a better chance of being elected president. He refused to impeach Donald Trump when Donald Trump attacked our democracy. He has held open seats to make room for radical extremists on the lower courts who have done absolutely wild things, like order nationwide bans on medication abortion. He owns a lot of this, and he should be remembered as such.
Indianapolis Star
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana's ultrasound video requirement defies parents' rights on sex ed
It is finally spring, and even the U.S. Supreme Court has its mind on the birds and the bees. The court heard arguments in April in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which involves a coalition of parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, who argue that school administrators violated their parental and religious rights because they could not opt their children out of lessons that included LGBTQ+ themes. The parents argue that schools shouldn't expose their children to LGBTQ-themed books such as 'Love, Violet' or 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' without their consent. Like me, you may have a vivid grade school memory of being separated by gender to sit and watch a grainy film explaining what was starting to happen to our pubescent bodies and what our teachers called 'the facts of life.' If you're a parent, you might also remember an evening like the one when my 4-year-old son asked me where babies come from. We were watching a classic Disney film in which a lovable baby elephant is delivered to his mom via stork − and then violently separated from her after she is deemed 'mad' and locked up in solitary confinement. There was a happy ending to the film, but it wasn't exactly the cute circus cartoon I expected. Still, Owen wasn't misled. He knew birds don't deliver babies. But at 4 years old, he was already confused, anxious and concerned. As we talked, I learned that he had recently found out his favorite preschool teacher had just lost a pregnancy. 'What happened to that baby in her tummy?' I truly didn't know. 'Where did it go?' That one gets even harder. 'How did it get in there in the first place?' Great questions, Owen. Kids − and maybe all of us − have an innate curiosity about human procreation. Regardless, there seem to be three universal rules for how and when to respond when faced with that curiosity: Make it age-appropriate, medically accurate and scientifically based. During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito asked, 'What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?' Justice Brett Kavanaugh commented that he was 'not understanding why it's not feasible' for schools to excuse children from instruction that violates their families' religious beliefs. I know there are parents, teachers, legislators and others who see sex education in religious terms. For those who prefer to handle this at home for religious or other reasons (or sometimes not at all), in some states parents can decline sex ed for their kids, and many schools do not even offer it. Sharing information is often critical to keeping kids safe. That said, sometimes it also can be used to push agendas. My home state of Indiana soon will join several other states, including Tennessee, North Dakota and Idaho, in refusing to allow parents to decide whether or not they will permit their child to view a "high definition ultrasound video, at least three (3) minutes induration, showing the development of the brain, heart, sex organs, and other vital organs in early fetal development." Some of the states have passed language that indicates a particular video, known as 'Meet Baby Olivia,' created by Live Action, an organization that objects to abortion for any reason and was founded by prominent anti-abortion activist Lila Rose. If sex ed is being taught in school, these laws make this video (or one very much like it) compulsory, forcing kids to watch potentially traumatic material that many parents would appreciate exempting their children from, even while they'd prefer to opt into sex ed for those same kids. In 2024, then-Iowa Rep. Molly Buck, who has taught elementary school for 28 years, summed this issue up well. 'When we talk about indoctrination of kids, we have to be mindful of both sides,' Buck said. 'We don't want the 'liberal left' indoctrinating our kids, and we don't want the right side indoctrinating our kids, either. So our kids need factual health information, not fictional.' Kids are not Lego sets and certainly don't come with detailed instructions. The night "Dumbo" came to dinner, I answered Owen's questions with way too much information. It was medically sound and scientifically based but, I soon discovered, not age appropriate. I had made things worse. I wanted to make my little guy feel better yet did the opposite. So I took the easy way out − I distracted him with chocolate milk and dropped the conversation for about 10 years. To this day, I'm grateful my son had access to age-appropriate information delivered by competent educators at his school. It's important that we give our children factual information they can understand. Looking back, I certainly would have opted into sex ed that would have provided Owen with age-appropriate, factual information about LGBTQ+ issues. I also know I would have strongly objected to content such as the "Meet Baby Olivia" video − content the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not endorse as it is neither medically correct nor scientifically based. We must show fairness to all families. Should the Supreme Court decide in favor of the families objecting to LGBTQ+ content in Montgomery County, it must consistently and similarly defend the rights of all parents − including those who wish to opt out of what many see as content that teaches about the birds and the bees with a strong dose of anti-reproductive justice. Religious and political propaganda has no place in our schools. Facts and fairness, however, do.
USA Today
08-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Parents' rights go both ways. Sex education shouldn't push anti-abortion agenda.
Parents' rights go both ways. Sex education shouldn't push anti-abortion agenda. | Opinion Should the Supreme Court decide in favor of the families objecting to LGBTQ+ content in Maryland, it must consistently and similarly defend the rights of all parents. Show Caption Hide Caption SCOTUS takes up case on LGBTQ+, inclusive books in schools Demonstrators on both sides protested as the Supreme Court heard a school district's case on parents' rights and LGBTQ+ books. It is finally spring, and even the U.S. Supreme Court has its mind on the birds and the bees. The court heard arguments in April in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which involves a coalition of parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, who argue that school administrators violated their parental and religious rights because they could not opt their children out of lessons that included LGBTQ+ themes. The parents argue that schools shouldn't expose their children to LGBTQ-themed books such as 'Love, Violet' or 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' without their consent. Discussions with kids about sex are often difficult Like me, you may have a vivid grade school memory of being separated by gender to sit and watch a grainy film explaining what was starting to happen to our pubescent bodies and what our teachers called 'the facts of life.' If you're a parent, you might also remember an evening like the one when my 4-year-old son asked me where babies come from. We were watching a classic Disney film in which a lovable baby elephant is delivered to his mom via stork − and then violently separated from her after she is deemed 'mad' and locked up in solitary confinement. There was a happy ending to the film, but it wasn't exactly the cute circus cartoon I expected. Still, Owen wasn't misled. He knew birds don't deliver babies. But at 4 years old, he was already confused, anxious and concerned. As we talked, I learned that he had recently found out his favorite preschool teacher had just lost a pregnancy. 'What happened to that baby in her tummy?' I truly didn't know. 'Where did it go?' That one gets even harder. 'How did it get in there in the first place?' Great questions, Owen. Kids − and maybe all of us − have an innate curiosity about human procreation. Regardless, there seem to be three universal rules for how and when to respond when faced with that curiosity: Make it age-appropriate, medically accurate and scientifically based. During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito asked, 'What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?' Justice Brett Kavanaugh commented that he was 'not understanding why it's not feasible' for schools to excuse children from instruction that violates their families' religious beliefs. I know there are parents, teachers, legislators and others who see sex education in religious terms. For those who prefer to handle this at home for religious or other reasons (or sometimes not at all), in some states parents can decline sex ed for their kids, and many schools do not even offer it. Sharing information is often critical to keeping kids safe. That said, sometimes it also can be used to push agendas. Another view: Schools are pushing LGBTQ books on kids. Supreme Court should side with parents. | Opinion States require students to watch video about abortion My home state of Indiana soon will join several other states, including Tennessee, North Dakota and Idaho, in refusing to allow parents to decide whether or not they will permit their child to view a "high definition ultrasound video, at least three (3) minutes induration, showing the development of the brain, heart, sex organs, and other vital organs in early fetal development." Some of the states have passed language that indicates a particular video, known as 'Meet Baby Olivia,' created by Live Action, an organization that objects to abortion for any reason and was founded by prominent anti-abortion activist Lila Rose. Opinion: Abortion ban, fetal anomaly and a ticking clock − 'an impossible decision' If sex ed is being taught in school, these laws make this video (or one very much like it) compulsory, forcing kids to watch potentially traumatic material that many parents would appreciate exempting their children from, even while they'd prefer to opt into sex ed for those same kids. In 2024, then-Iowa Rep. Molly Buck, who has taught elementary school for 28 years, summed this issue up well. 'When we talk about indoctrination of kids, we have to be mindful of both sides,' Buck said. 'We don't want the 'liberal left' indoctrinating our kids, and we don't want the right side indoctrinating our kids, either. So our kids need factual health information, not fictional.' Kids are not Lego sets and certainly don't come with detailed instructions. The night "Dumbo" came to dinner, I answered Owen's questions with way too much information. It was medically sound and scientifically based but, I soon discovered, not age appropriate. I had made things worse. I wanted to make my little guy feel better yet did the opposite. So I took the easy way out − I distracted him with chocolate milk and dropped the conversation for about 10 years. To this day, I'm grateful my son had access to age-appropriate information delivered by competent educators at his school. It's important that we give our children factual information they can understand. Looking back, I certainly would have opted into sex ed that would have provided Owen with age-appropriate, factual information about LGBTQ+ issues. I also know I would have strongly objected to content such as the "Meet Baby Olivia" video − content the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not endorse as it is neither medically correct nor scientifically based. We must show fairness to all families. Should the Supreme Court decide in favor of the families objecting to LGBTQ+ content in Montgomery County, it must consistently and similarly defend the rights of all parents − including those who wish to opt out of what many see as content that teaches about the birds and the bees with a strong dose of anti-reproductive justice. Religious and political propaganda has no place in our schools. Facts and fairness, however, do. Christina Hale is a former Indiana state legislator and Democratic candidate for the U.S. House. Hale is the author of "Why Not You: A Leadership Guide for the Change-Makers of Tomorrow."
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court flare-ups grab headlines as justices feel the heat
Tensions on the Supreme Court have flared this term as justices have clashed with each other and with lawyers at oral arguments amid a wave of Trump-era emergency appeals. These exchanges at any other forum would hardly even raise an eyebrow. But at the Supreme Court, where decorum and respect are bedrock principles and underpin even the most casual cross-talk between justices, these recent clashes are significant. After one particularly acrimonious exchange, several longtime Supreme Court watchers noted that the behavior displayed was unlike anything they'd seen in "decades" of covering the high court. Here are two high-profile Supreme Court spats that have made headlines in recent weeks. 100 Days Of Injunctions, Trials And 'Teflon Don': Trump Second Term Meets Its Biggest Tests In Court Supreme Court Justices, from left, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Chief Justice John Roberts, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor attend the 60th inaugural ceremony in 2025. Last month, Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor quarreled briefly during oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case focused on LGBTQ-related books in elementary schools and whether parents with religious objections can "opt out" children being read such material. Read On The Fox News App The exhange occurred when Sotomayor asked Mahmoud attorney Eric Baxter about a book titled "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," a story that invoked a same-sex relationship. Sotomayor asked Baxter whether exposure to same-sex relationships in children's books like the one in question should be considered "coercion." Baxter began responding when Alito chimed in. "I've read that book as well as a lot of these other books," Alito said. "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?" After Baxter objected, Alito noted that the book in question "has a clear message" but one that some individuals with "traditional religious beliefs don't agree with." Sotomayor jumped in partway through Alito's objection, "What a minute, the reservation is – " "Can I finish?" Alito said to Sotomayor in a rare moment of frustration. He continued, "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." Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Review El Salvador Deportation Flight Case From left, Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagen, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh "There is a growing heat to the exchanges between the justices," Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley observed on social media after the exchange. The Sotomayor-Alito spat made some court-watchers uncomfortable. But it paled in comparison to the heated, tense exchange that played out just one week later between Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and Lisa Blatt, a litigator from the firm Williams & Connolly. The exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case about whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Gorsuch scolded Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator who was representing the public schools in the case, after she accused the other side of "lying." What played out was a remarkably heated exchange, if only by Supreme Court standards. Several court observers noted that they had never seen Gorsuch so angry, and others remarked they had never seen counsel accuse the other side of "lying." "You believe that Mr. Martinez and the Solicitor General are lying? Is that your accusation?" Gorsuch asked Blatt, who fired back, "Yes, absolutely." Counsel "should be more careful with their words," Gorsuch told Blatt in an early tone of warning. "OK, well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect," Blatt responded. Several minutes later, Gorsuch referenced the lying accusation again, "Ms. Blatt, I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied." "I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase," he said. "You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying, lying is another matter." He then began to read through quotations that she had entered before the court, before she interrupted again. "I'm not finished," Gorsuch told Blatt, raising his voice. "Fine," she responded. Shortly after, Gorsuch asked Blatt to withdraw her earlier remarks that accused the other side of lying. "Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt," Gorsuch said. "Fine, I withdraw," she shot back. Plaintiffs said in rebuttal that they would not dignify the name-calling. Supreme Court The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who wrote on social media, "I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry." "Both of those moments literally stopped me in my tracks," said Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. "You might want to listen somewhere where you can cringe in peace." Mark Joseph Stern, a court reporter for Slate, described the exchange as "extremely tense" and described Blatt's behavior as "indignant and unrepentant." Original article source: Supreme Court flare-ups grab headlines as justices feel the heat
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court likely to side with Ohio group on student opt-outs for LGBTQ+ lessons
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — The U.S. Supreme Court signaled last week it will likely rule with parents who wish to opt their children out of school lessons that include LGBTQ+ books, agreeing with an Ohio group that intervened in the case. The nation's top court heard arguments on April 22 in the case against a Maryland school district whose curriculum includes LGBTQ+ books, after lower courts sided with the district and said the books weren't part of 'explicit instruction' on sexual orientation and gender identity. Rather, the materials were included as options within the district's reading list to represent 'a range of cultural, racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds.' Ohio Supreme Court to decide same-sex parental rights case The Protect Ohio Children Coalition had joined other similar groups from California, Colorado, Nebraska and Texas in writing an amicus brief against the school district, arguing in favor of opt-outs for parents wishing to remove their students from such lessons, citing an infringement of their religious beliefs. 'The parents have never maintained that the Pride storybooks, or other specified controversial texts, cannot be taught to other [district] students,' the brief said. 'The parents merely do not want their own children to be subjected to what they view as attempted indoctrination.' LGBTQ+ books on the reading list included titles like 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' about a young girl struggling with her uncle's same-sex marriage, and 'Pride Puppy,' about attendees at a Pride march who band together to find a family's lost dog. The district said those on the list are 'made available for individual reading, classroom read-aloud and other educational activities designed to foster and enhance literacy skills.' During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts was reluctant to agree with the school board's argument that the curriculum didn't require students to affirm or support the content of the books. Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the books appeared to be presenting children with more than just neutral facts about the LGBTQ+ community. 'It's not just exposure to the idea, right?' 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 two plus two is four.' Seven Buckeyes taken on final day of NFL draft while Sanders goes to Browns Justice Elena Kagan asked whether a ruling for the parents would cause an increase in religious objections and lead schools to abandon aspects of the curriculum because of the difficulty of providing opt-outs. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned if students had exposure to the contested books. 'Haven't we made very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?' Kagan said. 'None of them are even kissing in any of these books. The most they are doing is holding hands.' A similar argument was previously made by Judge G. Steven Agee of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the lower courts that agreed with the district. Agee said the parents were not able to 'connect the requisite dots' to show that their religious rights were violated, given there isn't proof that a teacher has used the books in a manner that 'coerces children into changing their religious views.' Protect Ohio Children Coalition joined the amicus brief as the inclusion of LGBTQ+ themes in classrooms is being debated across Ohio, like in the case of a New Richmond teacher who is taking her district to court after she was suspended for having books in her class library with LGBTQ+ characters. Ohio State faculty vote to join Big Ten alliance against Trump A Jackson Township school district said in January it will pay $450,000 to a middle school teacher who resigned for refusing to address two transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns after a court said forcing the teacher to use students' preferred names amounted to 'compelled speech.' The coalition also supported Ohio's 'Parents' Bill of Rights' law, which includes a provision requiring schools to provide parents the opportunity to review instructional material that includes 'sexuality content.' A national crisis hotline said it received a significant increase in calls from LGBTQ+ youth in Ohio within hours after the measure was signed. A decision in the Maryland case is expected this summer. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
