What to know about the US Supreme Court's ruling on public school lessons using LGBTQ books
A divided U.S. Supreme Court has sided with religious parents who want to pull their children out of the classroom when a public school lesson uses LGBTQ-themed storybooks.
The 6-3 decision Friday in a case brought by parents in Maryland comes as certain books are increasingly being banned from public schools and libraries.
In Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion — joined by the rest of the court's conservatives — he wrote that the lack of an 'opt-out' option for parents places an unconstitutional burden on their rights to religious freedom.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that public schools expose children to different views in a multicultural society.
'That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' she wrote. 'Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs.'
Here's what to know about the case and its potential impacts:
What happens next
The decision was not a final ruling in the case. It reversed lower-court rulings that sided with the Montgomery County school system, which introduced the storybooks in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity.
At first, the school district allowed parents to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the district later reversed course, saying it became disruptive. The move prompted protests and eventually a lawsuit.
Now, the case goes back to the lower court to be reevaluated under the Supreme Court's new guidance. But the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end.
The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in this case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them.
The ruling could have national implications for public education
Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the court's ruling could inspire similar lawsuits in other states.
'I think any school district that reads similar books to their children is now subject to suit by parents who don't want their kids to hear these books because it substantially interferes with their religious beliefs,' she said.
Whether it could open the door to broader legal challenges remains to be seen.
Levinson said the majority opinion's emphasis on the particular books at the center of the case, including 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a story about a two men getting married, could narrow its impact.
'The question that people will ask,' Levinson said, 'is if this could now allow parents to say, 'We don't want our kids to learn about certain aspects of American history.' '
LGBTQ rights advocates slam court ruling
Adam Zimmerman, who has two kids in school in Montgomery County, Maryland, called the ruling abhorrent.
'We need to call out what's being dressed up as religious faith and values and expose it for the intolerance that it really is,' he said.
Zimmerman has lived in Montgomery County for 16 years and wanted to raise his son and daughter there, in large part, because of the school district's diversity. It was important to him, he said, that his kids be exposed to people from all walks of life.
'It's a beautiful thing, and this ruling just spits on that diversity,' he said.
Other rights groups described the court's decision as harmful and dangerous.
'No matter what the Supreme Court has said, and what extremist groups are advocating for, book bans and other censorship will not erase LGBTQIA+ people from our communities,' said Fatima Goss Graves, CEO and president of the National Women's Law Center.
Conservative advocates say the case is about parental rights and religious freedom
Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was part of an amicus brief filed in the case in support of the Maryland parents, called the ruling a 'win for families.'
'Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family's religious beliefs,' he said.
Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the parents at the Supreme Court, also called the decision a 'historic victory for parental rights.'
'Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission,' Baxter said.
Other opponents say ruling will have 'broad chilling effect'
PEN America, a group advocating for free expression, said the court's decision could open the door to censorship and discrimination in classrooms.
'In practice, opt outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold,' said Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney at PEN America.
In a joint statement Friday, some of the authors and illustrators of the books in question described the ruling as a threat to First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as diversity in schools.
'To treat children's books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful,' the statement said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Waving Canadian flag on two-way street of trade
Opinion I gave up my Friday night pizza dates with Tom Gore around the same time Donald Trump started his trade war with Canada. It was a forced breakup, but I didn't mind. Tom was my favourite wine until it was pulled from liquor store shelves as part of the federal and provincial governments' response to the imposition of tariffs on U.S. imports from Canada. There's been so much background noise in the aftermath that it's been hard to keep track. All I know is Tom and all his California cohorts are still in exile, and the alternatives I've found are such that I don't miss them. Apparently, I'm not alone. Sales of U.S. wine to Canada are, by some accounts, down 94 per cent, and sales of Canadian alcoholic beverages are up, probably the most noticeable effect of our collective disenchantment with our largest trading partner. An Angus Reid poll released in the early days of this muddled trading mess showed four out of five Canadians were buying more Canadian products in the face of the Trump's tariff tactics. Three out of five said they were actively boycotting products from the U.S. However, these opinions were collected in February, around the same time it was still cool to boo the American anthem at hockey games. Thankfully, we've moved on from that. It's likely Canada's aversion to anything American will also start to dissipate now that Trump's attention has shifted from making Canada the 51st state to other matters. However, an Ipsos poll released this month shows the aversion to buying U.S.-made goods has gone global. Fewer than half of respondents from 29 countries say they are likely to buy something manufactured in the U.S. According to that poll, 63 per cent of Canadians say they are unlikely to buy anything American. Food and beverages top the list of consumer goods where shoppers can vote with their dollars, thumbing their nose at Trump every time they stock up. Considering all this, it comes as no surprise to anyone — except perhaps the U.S. administration — that the U.S. agricultural trade deficit is growing instead of shrinking as was promised when it turned to taxing imports, kicking out immigrant workers critical to its own food supply and detaining tourists to 'make America great again.' Release of the USDA quarterly trade report earlier this month was reportedly delayed and stripped of its usual analysis after the original draft's authors cited tariffs and the 'buy Canadian' movement as reasons for reduced demand for U.S. agricultural goods. The redacted report forecasts a US$49.5 billion trade deficit for fiscal year 2025, an increase of US$500 million. It's living proof it's never a good idea to trash-talk your best customers. However, that's something we Canadians need to keep in mind as we explore how to navigate the tangled trade environment we face for the foreseeable future. It's always a good idea to shop local when you can. Even if it costs a little more, supporting local suppliers and businesses circulates our hard-earned dollars in our communities, creating jobs and contributing to economic growth. Our farmers no doubt appreciate the moral and financial support. Yet one of Canada's defining strengths as a nation is its status as a global supplier of food commodities. More than 50 per cent of what farmers here grow is exported either directly or indirectly. The U.S. is still our largest trading partner. More than half of Canada's agri-food imports originate in the U.S., while 60 per cent of Canada's agri-food exports are U.S.-bound. The food industries in both countries count on that cross-border trade. For that reason, the export-orientated sectors have steadfastly maintained support for rules-based trade and opposition to policy that unduly protects access to domestic markets. Trade must be a two-way street. As Canada Day approaches, waving the flag and putting Canadian foods on the table is a meaningful expression of our national pride. Our collective individual actions do make a difference. But does supporting local equate with boycotting someone else? It's a choice we all need to make. Laura Rance is executive editor, production content lead for Glacier FarmMedia. She can be reached at lrance@ Laura RanceColumnist Laura Rance is editorial director at Farm Business Communications. Read full biography Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber. Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Winnipeg Free Press
4 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Fireworks will light up this Fourth of July. Next year could be different if tariff talks fizzle
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — Like clockwork, Carla Johnson sends out letters every spring asking for donations to help pay for the annual Fourth of July fireworks show that draws tens of thousands of people to New Mexico's largest lake. And she has no reservations about doling out verbal reminders when she sees her patrons around town. There's too much at stake to be shy about fundraising when donations collected by Friends of Elephant Butte Lake State Park are what make the tradition possible. But even Johnson's ardent efforts as the group's fundraiser might not cut it next year if the U.S. and China remain locked in a trade war. With nearly all of the aerial shells, paper rockets and sparkly fountains that fuel America's Fourth of July celebrations being imported from China, volunteer groups like Johnson's and cities big and small have been closely watching the negotiations. A 90-day pause on what had been massive tariffs brought some temporary relief, but industry experts acknowledge that the tiff has lit a fuse of uncertainty as the price tag for future fireworks displays could skyrocket if an agreement isn't reached. Not the first time There were similar concerns in 2019 as trade talks between the U.S. and China dragged on. Industry groups had called on officials then to exempt fireworks from escalating tariffs. The American Pyrotechnics Association and the National Fireworks Association reignited the lobbying effort this spring, noting in letters to President Donald Trump that fireworks play a crucial role in American celebrations. The groups say the industry is made up mostly of family-owned companies that are often locked into long-term contracts that leave them unable to raise prices to offset cost surges brought on by higher tariffs. And there are few options for sourcing the more than 300 million pounds (136 million kilograms) of fireworks needed to feed demands. China produces 99% of consumer fireworks and 90% of professional display fireworks used in the U.S., according to the APA. 'I think overall it's the uncertainty,' said Julie Heckman, the APA's executive director. 'Yeah, we have a 90-day pause, but are the negotiations with China going to go well? Or is it going to go sky-high again? You know, triple digits. It's very hard for a small business to plan.' How it began Fireworks have their roots in China. To ward off evil spirits, people would throw bamboo stalks into a fire, causing them to pop as the air inside the hollow pockets heated up. These early firecrackers evolved into more sophisticated fireworks after the Chinese developed gunpowder in the 9th century. By the 15th century, Europe was using fireworks for religious festivals and entertainment. In 1777, they were used in Philadelphia and Boston for what were the first organized Independence Day celebrations. Now, fireworks are synonymous with the summer holiday and with ringing in the new year. Shows have become elaborately choreographed displays that are often synced to live music. In Nashville, the Music City's award-winning symphony orchestra puts its own spin on the festivities. In New York City, organizers of the Macy's show will fire off 80,000 shells, with some reaching heights of 1,000 feet (304 meters). The National Park Service promises a spectacular show on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. At Elephant Butte in southern New Mexico, they're going old school and will light the fireworks by hand. Charlie Warren, vice president of the Friends of Elephant Butte Lake State Park, said it's like spectators are getting two shows at once as the colors reflect on the water below and the loud booms reverberate off the lake. Johnson, who also serves as the group's treasurer, gets emotional describing the experience. 'Oh man, in my heart and sometimes out loud, I'm singing the Star-Spangled Banner. I'll sing it out loud to the top of my lungs when I watch that show,' she said. 'It makes you proud to be in this country, and we're celebrating our freedom, and I'm going to start crying now. Don't get me started.' Stocking up before the tariffs Organizers in Nashville ordered fireworks for that show over a year ago so they weren't affected by the tariffs. It was the same in one of New Mexico's largest cities, where Rio Rancho officials planned to spend a little more to go bigger and higher this year. In Oklahoma, Big Blast Fireworks supplies nonprofit groups so they can fundraise by setting up fireworks stands. The company received its first container from China in January before the tariffs hit. The second container arrived in February and was subject to a 10% tariff. The third container was put on hold to avoid the highest tariffs, meaning inventory could be tight later this year if nothing changes. 'As a small business, we are passionate about watching our price points and intentional about passing along as much savings on to customers as possible,' said Melissa Torkleson, a managing partner at Big Blast. With some orders on hold, industry experts say Chinese manufacturers throttled back production as warehouses filled up. The backup in the supply chain also has resulted in competition for shipping space aboard ocean vessels, and Heckman, the APA's director, said it will take much more than flipping a light switch to ease either situation. If the trade war drags on, she said, there are ways that show organizers can adjust and spectators might not notice. A minute or two could be shaved from a show or certain types of fireworks could be substituted with less expensive options. As for this year, Warren said the price tag for the Elephant Butte show was unchanged and he and Johnson can't wait to see spectators lining the shoreline, on the surrounding hillsides and on boats bobbing on the lake. The mission every year is to make sure 'that the T's are all crossed,' Warren said. 'Because this community would not be happy if this show didn't come off,' he said.
Winnipeg Free Press
4 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What to know about the US Supreme Court's ruling on public school lessons using LGBTQ books
A divided U.S. Supreme Court has sided with religious parents who want to pull their children out of the classroom when a public school lesson uses LGBTQ-themed storybooks. The 6-3 decision Friday in a case brought by parents in Maryland comes as certain books are increasingly being banned from public schools and libraries. In Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion — joined by the rest of the court's conservatives — he wrote that the lack of an 'opt-out' option for parents places an unconstitutional burden on their rights to religious freedom. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that public schools expose children to different views in a multicultural society. 'That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' she wrote. 'Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs.' Here's what to know about the case and its potential impacts: What happens next The decision was not a final ruling in the case. It reversed lower-court rulings that sided with the Montgomery County school system, which introduced the storybooks in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. At first, the school district allowed parents to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the district later reversed course, saying it became disruptive. The move prompted protests and eventually a lawsuit. Now, the case goes back to the lower court to be reevaluated under the Supreme Court's new guidance. But the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in this case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The ruling could have national implications for public education Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the court's ruling could inspire similar lawsuits in other states. 'I think any school district that reads similar books to their children is now subject to suit by parents who don't want their kids to hear these books because it substantially interferes with their religious beliefs,' she said. Whether it could open the door to broader legal challenges remains to be seen. Levinson said the majority opinion's emphasis on the particular books at the center of the case, including 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a story about a two men getting married, could narrow its impact. 'The question that people will ask,' Levinson said, 'is if this could now allow parents to say, 'We don't want our kids to learn about certain aspects of American history.' ' LGBTQ rights advocates slam court ruling Adam Zimmerman, who has two kids in school in Montgomery County, Maryland, called the ruling abhorrent. 'We need to call out what's being dressed up as religious faith and values and expose it for the intolerance that it really is,' he said. Zimmerman has lived in Montgomery County for 16 years and wanted to raise his son and daughter there, in large part, because of the school district's diversity. It was important to him, he said, that his kids be exposed to people from all walks of life. 'It's a beautiful thing, and this ruling just spits on that diversity,' he said. Other rights groups described the court's decision as harmful and dangerous. 'No matter what the Supreme Court has said, and what extremist groups are advocating for, book bans and other censorship will not erase LGBTQIA+ people from our communities,' said Fatima Goss Graves, CEO and president of the National Women's Law Center. Conservative advocates say the case is about parental rights and religious freedom Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was part of an amicus brief filed in the case in support of the Maryland parents, called the ruling a 'win for families.' 'Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family's religious beliefs,' he said. Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the parents at the Supreme Court, also called the decision a 'historic victory for parental rights.' 'Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission,' Baxter said. Other opponents say ruling will have 'broad chilling effect' PEN America, a group advocating for free expression, said the court's decision could open the door to censorship and discrimination in classrooms. 'In practice, opt outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold,' said Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney at PEN America. In a joint statement Friday, some of the authors and illustrators of the books in question described the ruling as a threat to First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as diversity in schools. 'To treat children's books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful,' the statement said.
