Latest news with #religiousrights
CBS News
17-07-2025
- CBS News
Yarmulke-wearing Westmoreland County Prison inmate allegedly denied transportation to hearing over contraband concerns
An inmate at the Westmoreland County Prison was allegedly denied transport to a hearing on Monday because he wouldn't take off his yarmulke. In a brief phone conversation on Thursday with KDKA, Kort Eckman's attorney, Tim Andrews, confirmed that it appears his client was denied transport to the courthouse from the Westmoreland County Jail because he refused to take off his yarmulke. A yarmulke is a religious piece of Jewish headwear, and Eckman identifies as Jewish. Sources told KDKA that the prison is alleging that contraband could be brought into the prison with such a headpiece, so it was limiting what items were being transported with the inmate. KDKA reached out to Westmoreland County Prison Warden Steven Pelesky for comment on this story, but did not hear back on Thursday. KDKA was, however, able to connect with the prison's former warden, Bryan Kline, who says that not transporting a prisoner because of their yarmulke is impeding justice. "The religious headwear shouldn't affect anything," Kline said. "Any time a criminal leaves a correctional facility and comes back, there is always an opportunity for contraband to be introduced; that is the purpose of the pat down when they come back into the facility. So, anything that is brought into a correctional facility should be caught in the booking department of any correctional facility." Eckman was imprisoned for allegedly stabbing his mother nearly 20 times back in 2023 and allegedly trying to kill her because he thought she was a Nazi war criminal. Sara Rose, the deputy legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said that despite what crimes Eckman may have committed, Eckman's faith is protected by the Constitution and a law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. "Jails just can't just say, well, we think there might be a security issue with this, so we are going to restrict this person's ability to wear a yarmulke from the jail to the courthouse," Rose said. "No, it has to be this is the exact security concern we are worried about. We have tried other options, and none of the other ones are going to meet our interest in maintaining security." Now, Eckman is due back in court next week, and KDKA was told that the judge said that Eckman must be transported regardless of whether or not he is wearing his yarmulke.
Yahoo
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
L.I. woman secures $225K settlement, Suffolk policy reform after forced hijab removal
Suffolk County has agreed to pay a $225,000 settlement to a Long Island woman who sued the county in federal court last year, claiming police forced her to remove her hijab and strip-searched her in front of a male officer. Marowa Fahmy — a practicing Muslim who has worn a hijab every day for nearly 30 years — was arrested by Suffolk County police officers in October 2022 following a domestic complaint that was later determined to be false. Despite telling officers that her religion prohibits her from being uncovered in front of men outside her immediate family, Fahmy said she was forced to remove her hijab and remain with her hair and neck exposed for about nine hours, according to the lawsuit filed on her behalf in January 2024 by the Council on American-Islamic Relations New York (CAIR-NY) and the law firm Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel. The 'humiliating' and 'traumatic' ordeal violated the core tenets of Fahmy's faith and deeply affected her, she said. 'Being forced to remove my hijab and remain exposed for hours in front of male officers violated everything I believe in,' Fahmy said in a statement on Friday. 'I brought this case so no one else has to go through what I did.' In the lawsuit, Fahmy alleged that the SCPD violated her religious rights under federal and state law. The complaint also challenged the county's policy that required people to remove religious head coverings for booking photos. After the suit was filed, Suffolk County revised its policy to allow religious coverings — such as hijabs, yarmulkes and turbans — to be worn during booking photos and while in custody, unless exceptional circumstances apply, according to Fahmy's lawyers. As part of the settlement filed Friday, Fahmy will receive $225,000 in damages. In addition to the monetary award, the SCPD has agreed to train its officers on policies regarding religious head coverings. 'The forced removal of a person's religious head covering in front of male officers is profoundly degrading,' one of her lawyers, O. Andrew F. Wilson, told the Daily News in an emailed statement. 'Ms. Fahmy's courage to bring this case not only secured justice for herself but led to real policy change,' Wilson said. 'This settlement sends a clear message that Suffolk County's previous practices were unconstitutional and out of step with national norms.' The agreement also reaffirms that law enforcement 'must respect the hijab' and the women who wear them, added Burhan Carroll, a staff attorney with CAIR-NY. 'What Ms. Fahmy went through should never happen again,' Carroll said.
Yahoo
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US supreme court rules schools must let kids opt out of LGBTQ+ book readings
The US supreme court has ruled that schools must give children the chance to opt out on faith grounds from listening to storybooks being read out loud that feature gay and transgender characters, in a landmark decision that will be seen as striking a blow for religious rights in education. In a case that exposed the passions surrounding the US's religious-secular divide, the court sided with parents in Maryland who protested that they were left with no means of shielding their children from the contents of six storybooks they found objectionable. The ruling means that the Montgomery county board of education – which administers schools in some of Washington DC's most affluent suburbs – must provide opt-out facilities. Related: US supreme court limits judges' power on nationwide injunctions in apparent win for Trump In the case, Mahmoud v Taylor, three sets of parents, comprising Muslims, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, complained that the board's policy in effect forced their children to hear storylines that they alleged promoted 'political ideologies about family life and human sexuality that are inconsistent with sound science, common sense, and the well-being of children'. One book, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, features a gay character who is getting married, while another, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, is about a transgender child. The parents in the case filed a complaint after education authorities decreed that parents should not expect to receive prior notice before one of the books was read out loud in class, thus enabling a child to leave the room for that period. The ruling was handed down after an initial hearing in April at which several of the court's conservative justices – who form a 6-3 majority on the bench – appeared sympathetic to the plaintiffs' case after lower courts refused to force the education authorities to change its policy. In the ruling, the conservative justice Samuel Alito wrote: 'We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.' At the end of Alito's judgment, the ruling stated: 'Until all appellate review in this case is completed, the [school] board should be ordered to notify [parents] in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' The ruling prompted a fierce dissent from the liberal justice Sonya Sotomayor, who said that public education was intended to be a unifying experience for children and 'the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny'. But she added that concept would become 'a mere memory' if pupils were 'insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs'. The ruling comes against a widespread conservative backlash in public schools and public libraries across many places in the US, but especially Republican-run parts of the country. The backlash has often sought to remove books that social conservatives find objectionable – often those that involve depictions of LGBTQ+ themes or racial inequality. Related: US supreme court rules key provision of Obamacare constitutional The American Library Association estimates there are at least 112 proposed state laws concerning schools and public libraries that seek to expand the definition of what is deemed obscene or harmful to children and to limit librarian staff's ability to determine which books they hold in their collections. In a statement, Catholics for Choice, which opposes the court's ruling, said: 'The Supreme Court decided that it is okay for parents to teach their children to discriminate and judge people who are different than them.' Taylor Tuckerman, a CfC vice-president, said: 'It's also important for children to learn that our differences – religion, sexual orientation, gender expression, race, economic backgrounds, and more – contribute to a thriving community and are not something to be ashamed of.'
The Guardian
28-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US supreme court rules schools must let kids opt out of LGBTQ+ book readings
The US supreme court has ruled that schools must give children the chance to opt out on faith grounds from listening to storybooks being read out loud that feature gay and transgender characters, in a landmark decision that will be seen as striking a blow for religious rights in education. In a case that exposed the passions surrounding the US's religious-secular divide, the court sided with parents in Maryland who protested that they were left with no means of shielding their children from the contents of six storybooks they found objectionable. The ruling means that the Montgomery county board of education – which administers schools in some of Washington DC's most affluent suburbs – must provide opt-out facilities. In the case, Mahmoud v Taylor, three sets of parents, comprising Muslims, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, complained that the board's policy in effect forced their children to hear storylines that they alleged promoted 'political ideologies about family life and human sexuality that are inconsistent with sound science, common sense, and the well-being of children'. One book, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, features a gay character who is getting married, while another, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, is about a transgender child. The parents in the case filed a complaint after education authorities decreed that parents should not expect to receive prior notice before one of the books was read out loud in class, thus enabling a child to leave the room for that period. The ruling was handed down after an initial hearing in April at which several of the court's conservative justices – who form a 6-3 majority on the bench – appeared sympathetic to the plaintiffs' case after lower courts refused to force the education authorities to change its policy. In the ruling, the conservative justice Samuel Alito wrote: 'We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.' At the end of Alito's judgment, the ruling stated: 'Until all appellate review in this case is completed, the [school] board should be ordered to notify [parents] in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' The ruling prompted a fierce dissent from the liberal justice Sonya Sotomayor, who said that public education was intended to be a unifying experience for children and 'the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny'. But she added that concept would become 'a mere memory' if pupils were 'insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs'. The ruling comes against a widespread conservative backlash in public schools and public libraries across many places in the US, but especially Republican-run parts of the country. The backlash has often sought to remove books that social conservatives find objectionable – often those that involve depictions of LGBTQ+ themes or racial inequality. The American Library Association estimates there are at least 112 proposed state laws concerning schools and public libraries that seek to expand the definition of what is deemed obscene or harmful to children and to limit librarian staff's ability to determine which books they hold in their collections. In a statement, Catholics for Choice, which opposes the court's ruling, said: 'The Supreme Court decided that it is okay for parents to teach their children to discriminate and judge people who are different than them.' Taylor Tuckerman, a CfC vice-president, said: 'It's also important for children to learn that our differences – religion, sexual orientation, gender expression, race, economic backgrounds, and more – contribute to a thriving community and are not something to be ashamed of.'
Washington Post
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Sotomayor issues fiery dissents to major Supreme Court decisions
Twice on Friday morning, as Supreme Court spectators digested two landmark, 6-3 rulings on birthright citizenship and religious rights in schools, Justice Sonia Sotomayor ferociously disagreed. As the courtroom quietly turned its attention to her — after listening to Justice Amy Coney Barrett read her summary of the majority view — the court's senior liberal justice hunched forward, peered through black-framed glasses and, in a clear, measured tone, began reading the first of her two long dissents, sounding an alarm over what she perceived to be the deep and lasting impacts of the rulings on schools, immigrants and the justice system. It marked the second and third times in this term that Sotomayor has read her dissent from the bench in her role as the longest-serving member of the court's liberal bloc. Earlier this month, she issued an oral dissent to a ruling that upheld a ban on transgender treatment for youths. In discussing President Donald Trump's order revoking birthright citizenship, Sotomayor noted that not even the Trump administration had tried to defend the substance of the order, instead attacking the use of 'universal injunctions' by three federal district courts that had ruled the citizenship ban unconstitutional. 'That the court uses this case of all cases to review the question of universal injunctions is shameful,' she declared. 'If there was ever a case where a universal injunction is appropriate, it is this one under every historical precedent.' Barrett — who wrote the majority opinion that lower courts have acted too broadly in issuing nationwide injunctions — turned to face Sotomayor as she read her dissents. The two are friends, and spoke together at a public forum last year, but the atmosphere between them seemed to grow chilly as Sotomayor continued reading for 20 minutes. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch normally sits between Sotomayor and Barrett, but he was absent Friday for unexplained reasons. 'Ordering relief that extends beyond the plaintiff,' Barrett said, 'exceeds the power of the Judiciary Act,' which established the federal courts' jurisdiction in 1798. The opinion Barrett wrote sent three cases back to lower courts to determine if something less than a nationwide injunction might suffice. Sotomayor called that 'very strange because the lower courts found only universal injunctions would be appropriate.' The majority ruling left open the option for plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits, but Sotomayor ridiculed that option. 'Every court to consider that [citizenship] order has deemed it patently unconstitutional,' she said. 'Yet the majority ignores the order's unlawfulness. Instead, the executive is generally free to enforce unquestionably unconstitutional policies against everyone except those who file suit.' Sotomayor revisited the 14th Amendment, reading the clause that grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. 'The lawmakers who ratified the 14th Amendment said … and understood that it would extend citizenship to people born here, regardless of their parents' citizenship,' Sotomayor said. 'All three branches of the government have unflinchingly recognized birthright citizenship' since 1868. 'Enforcement of the citizenship order against even one newborn child is an assault on our constitutional order,' she added. 'Today's decision is not just egregiously wrong, it is also a travesty of law.' She said any federal agency can now break a law 'and federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions immediately.' 'No right is safe,' she warned. 'Today, the test is birthright citizenship.' She said future administrations could try to seize guns in violation of the Second Amendment or prohibit religious worship in violation of the First Amendment. Sotomayor said that those affected by Friday's ruling 'would be well advised to file class-action suits immediately. … Lower courts would be wise to act quickly on such requests for relief.' She concluded, 'With a stroke of the pen, the president has made a mockery of our Constitution.' Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. then moved to another case, but soon Sotomayor was on deck again. The conservative majority ruled that school districts must allow parents to remove their students from classes where LGBTQ+ issues are raised. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. read from a book intended for use in Montgomery County, Maryland, schools, titled, 'Born Ready,' in which the character Penelope expresses that she wants to be a boy. 'This is a clear message about gender alteration procedures,' Alito said, 'to which many parents disagree.' He said parents 'have a right to instruct their children in accordance with their beliefs,' and that the Montgomery County school board was 'dismissive of the parents' concerns.' Sotomayor said the book merely gave a positive message about accepting a transgender person. 'Today's ruling, make no mistake, threatens the very essence of public education in this country,' she said, adding, 'If innocuous children's books read aloud are enough to engender strict scrutiny, then nearly everything is.' Sotomayor said the use of such books was merely 'exposing kids to the fact that gay and transgender people may exist … and their family members may treat them with love and kindness.' She said: 'Does mere exposure to concepts … prohibit the exercise of their religion? The answer to that question for centuries has been no. Mere exposure to objectionable ideas does not amount to a prohibition on free exercise of religion.' Sotomayor agreed with Montgomery County administrators, who argued that tracking every student's religious academic preferences would be difficult. 'To say this will not cause an administrative burden is ridiculous,' she said. 'One thing is clear,' she said. 'The damage to America's public school system will be profound. Teachers will have to stop classes merely to usher children in and out, which will cripple schools and destroy their openness.'
