Maryland leaders respond after U.S. Supreme Court sides with group of parents on school gender identity lessons
Leaders in Maryland have given mixed reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of a group of Montgomery County school parents who want to opt their young children out of lessons that include books that talk about gender and sexual orientation.
The 6-3 opinion in Mahmoud v. Taylor grants the group of parents a preliminary injunction as their lawsuit continues to play out.
In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Montgomery County Schools must notify parents and allow them to opt their children out of reading books that contain LGBTQ-inclusive content.
"While we are extremely disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision, unfortunately, we are not surprised," the Montgomery County Education Association said in a statement. "MCEA believes that our public schools should remain inclusive places where differences are celebrated. This decision sets us back and is reminiscent of a time when discrimination and intolerance were the norm."
Maryland leaders react to Supreme Court ruling
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown expressed his disappointment after the Supreme Court ruling.
"These materials help teachers create classrooms where all students can thrive and feel safe, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation," he said in a statement.
The Maryland Senate Republican Caucus praised the decision as "a victory for common sense and for parental rights."
The group of Republican leaders said the ruling, "affirms a fundamental principle that Maryland parents–not government bureaucrats–should have the final say in how their children are educated, particularly when it comes to sensitive topics like gender identity and sexuality."
Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey said the Montgomery County school district took an "extreme step" by denying parents the right to opt out of curriculum that goes against their family values.
"That's not inclusive—it's authoritarian," he said in a statement.
"This case should serve as a wake-up call to education officials across Maryland," said Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD-8) said the ruling opens Pandora's box for those who wish to opt out of teachings that don't align with their family's religious beliefs.
"There are religions that oppose medical science, surgery, psychiatry, interracial marriage, monogamy, woman's suffrage, the right of gay people to marry, and so on. All of them will now be able to flood the courts with claims that particular curricular teachings and books offend their sincere values and their children should not be exposed to the offensive doctrines," Raskin said in a statement.
WJZ has reached out to Gov. Wes Moore's office for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
21 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Americans Want More Kids. The IRS Can Help
In his op-ed 'You Can't Legislate Fertility' (June 24), Matthew Hennessey writes that 'encouraging people to start families is a job for churches and civil society, not the IRS.' But Americans rely on the tax code to make it easier to have the children they already want. Women in the U.S. report having, on average, one child fewer than they'd like. Programs like the child tax credit can help close that gap. The current credit has lost a fifth of its value to inflation since President Trump's first term. The reconciliation bill is Congress's chance to add that value back. Parents are essentially small-scale entrepreneurs: When they're empowered to take risks, everyone benefits from the payoff. Family tax benefits are pro-growth policy—like R&D credits, they help parents afford the start-up costs of a major investment in the future of their family and our country.
Wall Street Journal
21 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Why Shouldn't Europe Seize Russia's Assets?
Your editorial 'Trump Wins the Battle of NATO' (June 26) notes the good news: Our European allies are finally going to pony up more for their security. But when it comes to Russia's illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, our treaty allies shouldn't only commit additional billions to defense. They should also seize frozen Russian sovereign assets as a powerful form of deterrence. Having immobilized an estimated €210 billion of Russian funds, Europe can impose additional costs on Moscow through confiscation, diverting many of these resources to Ukraine's defense. I co-authored the REPO Act, which allows for the seizure of Russian sovereign assets in the U.S. Though President Biden signed the bill in April 2024, the White House chose not to use it for months. With President Trump at the helm, we can end the Biden-era policy of hesitation and move swiftly to implement the law—starting by transferring $5 billion in immobilized Russian funds held in the U.S. to Ukraine. If NATO countries are making the significant choice to spend more on defense, using Russia's frozen assets should be an easy decision. How can NATO members urge their taxpayers to chip in more while letting Vladimir Putin off the hook?
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California energy regulator recommends pause on plan to penalize excess oil profits
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California should pause Gov. Gavin Newsom's plan to penalize oil companies if their profits climb too high, a top energy regulator said Friday while unveiling proposals aimed at addressing high gas prices. The Democratic governor signed a law in 2023 giving the California Energy Commission the authority to penalize oil companies for excess profits, declaring the state had 'finally beat big oil.' More than two years later, the commission hasn't imposed a single penalty or determined what counts as an excessive profit. Now, Siva Gunda, the energy commission's vice-chair, says the state should pause the effort in favor of pursuing other policies to lower prices and maintain a steady oil supply — all while pushing to phase out reliance on fossil fuels over the next two decades. 'Together, we will evolve California's strategy to successfully phase out petroleum-based fuels by 2045 while protecting communities, workers, and consumers, and foster market conditions that support the industry's ability to operate safely, reliably, and successfully to meet demand through the transition,' Gunda wrote in a letter to Newsom. Gunda's recommended pause of the penalty would have to be agreed upon by the full commission. Newsom has pitched the penalty as a way to rein in profits by oil companies, but critics said it would only raise prices. California has the highest gas prices in the nation, largely due to taxes and environmental regulations. Regular unleaded gas prices were $4.61 a gallon Friday, compared to a national average of $3.20, according to AAA. The commission still plans to set rules that would require oil refineries to keep a minimum level of fuel on hand to avoid shortages when refineries go offline for maintenance, Gunda said. That proposal came out of a law Newsom signed last year after convening a special session aimed at preventing gas price spikes. Gunda's recommendations come months after Newsom in April directed energy regulators to work with refiners on plans to ensure the state maintains a reliable fuel supply as it transitions away from fossil fuels. Newsom spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor said in an email that the governor would review the recommendations and 'advance solutions that maintain a safe, affordable, and reliable supply of transportation fuels for California.' Two major oil companies announced plans over the past year to shut down refineries in the state, further driving uncertainty about how the state should maintain a stable fuel supply as California transitions toward renewable energy. Phillips 66 announced plans to shut down its Los Angeles-area refinery, and Valero said it would cease operations at its Benicia refinery. The two refineries combined account for more than 17% of the state's refining capacity, according to the energy commission. A group of about 50 environmental and consumer groups penned a letter to Newsom and legislative leaders Friday criticizing the proposal to pause implementing a penalty on oil company profits. 'California oil refiners do not need a bailout,' they wrote, adding that the state should 'finish the job' it started to prevent prices at the pump from spiking. ___ Austin is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Austin on X: @sophieadanna Sophie Austin, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
