Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks.
With the six conservative justices in the majority, the court reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material.
The lack of an 'opt-out,' Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court, 'places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion.'
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that exposure to different views in a multicultural society is a critical feature of public schools. '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,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Today's ruling ushers in that new reality.'
The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them.
The school district introduced the storybooks, including 'Prince & Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man.
The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years, and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries.
Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a 'hoax' and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat.
The writers' group PEN America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' PEN America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year.
'By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools,' said Elly Brinkley, a lawyer for the group's U.S. Free Expression Programs. '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."
Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the Maryland parents at the Supreme Court, said the decision was 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.
Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit.
At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the 'opt outs' had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said.
The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn't send their children to public schools.
Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
27 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Article 370 was against Ambedkar's ideology of one Constitution: CJI BR Gavai
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Saturday said that BR Ambedkar envisioned one Constitution to keep the country united and never favoured the idea of a separate Constitution for any state, PTI reported. Justice Gavai said that the Supreme Court drew inspiration from Ambedkar's vision of a united India when it upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370, which had granted special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Bharatiya Janata Party-led Centre had abrogated Article 370 in August 2019. It also bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. In December 2023, the Supreme Court, with Justice Gavai as a member of the five-judge Constitution bench, upheld the validity of the 2019 order abrogating Article 370 and ordered the Centre to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. 'When the hearing was underway, I recalled Dr Babasaheb's words that one Constitution is suited for a country,' Justice Gavai said while addressing a gathering at the inauguration of the Constitution Preamble Park in New Delhi. 'If we want to keep the country united, we need only one Constitution.' The Chief Justice of India added that Ambedkar had faced criticism, with some people saying that the Constitution's strong federalism might compromise national unity, especially during wartime. Ambedkar had then responded to his critics that the Constitution would suit all the challenges and keep the nation united, PTI quoted Justice Gavai as saying. 'See the situation in the neighbouring countries, be it Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka,' he added. 'Whenever our country faces challenges, it has remained united.'
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why the Trump Justice Department is demanding the University of Virginia president resign
Trump DOJ demands UVA president resign over DEI policy investigation. (AP Photo) In a move described by legal experts as highly unusual, the US Justice Department under President Donald Trump has privately demanded the resignation of University of Virginia (UVA) President James E. Ryan as a condition for resolving a civil rights investigation into the university's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. According to a report by The New York Times, the demand was issued several times in recent weeks by Gregory Brown, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, who is also a UVA graduate and previously sued the university as a private lawyer. The pressure is part of a broader campaign led by the Trump administration to dismantle DEI initiatives in higher education institutions across the country. Push to reshape higher education through federal influence The Justice Department has told UVA officials that hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding are at risk due to what the department alleges is the university's failure to comply with federal civil rights law. According to The New York Times, the department claims that President Ryan has not dismantled UVA's DEI programs and has misrepresented the university's efforts to comply with executive orders issued by the administration. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo This is the first known instance in which the federal government has tied the outcome of a civil rights investigation to the removal of a university leader. Legal scholars told The New York Times that such tactics are more commonly associated with corporate investigations involving serious wrongdoing, rather than with educational institutions. Behind the resignation demand: politics, DEI, and Trump's agenda President Trump's administration has increasingly focused on reshaping the ideological direction of US universities, which it views as bastions of liberal thought. The push against DEI efforts is part of a broader initiative that began with an executive order targeting such programs across federal agencies, schools, and private companies. The order did not define DEI practices clearly, resulting in inconsistent institutional responses. President Ryan, who became UVA's ninth president in 2018, has emphasized diversity and service as central to the school's mission. He previously served as dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and has been praised for his commitment to inclusive academic environments. However, these values have put him at odds with conservative alumni and Republican-appointed board members, who accuse him of promoting a 'woke' agenda, as reported by The New York Times. Ties to America First Legal and conservative pressure Much of the political momentum behind this pressure campaign has been attributed to America First Legal, a group founded by Trump adviser Stephen Miller. The group accused UVA of merely rebranding its DEI programs and called on the Justice Department to 'hold UVA accountable.' Attorney Megan Redshaw, representing the organization, stated in a release quoted by The New York Times, 'Rebranding discrimination does not make it legal. ' Justice Department civil rights chief Harmeet K. Dhillon, who attended UVA Law School alongside Ryan, has also been directly involved in the negotiations, according to The New York Times. Discussions have included members of the university's oversight board, several of whom were appointed by Republican Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin. A broader strategy targeting elite institutions This move fits a larger pattern. The Trump administration has already stripped billions in federal funding from elite universities, including Harvard, and has initiated investigations through multiple federal agencies. The case of UVA is seen as a new frontier—targeting not only DEI practices but also university leadership itself. A UVA spokesperson declined to comment on President Ryan's status, as reported by The New York Times. The Justice Department also did not respond to media inquiries. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Congress dubs BJP 'anti-OBC' for not implementing 27% reservation in MP
The Congress on Saturday accused the BJP of being "anti-OBC" and demanded that the ruling party leaders apologise to people for failing to implement 27 per cent reservation for the community in Madhya Pradesh. Addressing a press conference at the AICC headquarters here, Congress general secretary Bhupesh Baghel said the real face and character of the BJP has now been "exposed". "It has been proved once again that by putting an OBC face in front, the BJP only betrays the interest of the community," the former Chhattisgarh chief minister said, lamenting the non-implementation of 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in both Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Baghel along with AICC in-charge for Madhya Pradesh Harish Chaudhary asserted that the the Supreme Court had made it clear that there were no judicial restrictions on implementing the quota. "RSS-BJP tried their best to ensure that the reservation is not implemented and spread confusion by calling this matter sub-judice," Chaudhary alleged. Live Events In 1994, Baghel rcealled, 14 per cent reservation was given to backward classes, and in 2003 during Digvijay Singh's tenure, it was made 27 per cent reservation. But the three BJP chief ministers from the OBC community -- Uma Bharti, Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Mohan Yadav -- unfortunately did not implement this reservation, Baghel said. "When the Supreme Court has given a clear order that there is no restriction on it, when it was passed in the assembly and the governor signed it, then what is the problem in implementing it," he asked. Baghel said in Chhattisgarh, on December 2, 2022, the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly unanimously decided to give 27 per cent reservation to the backward classes, but it is yet to be accorded the governor's sanction. "Today it is 2025, but it is still being studied. The governor misuses his powers. The Supreme Court has also reprimanded him in this matter," he claimed. "This is the real face of BJP. The BJP is anti-backwards and against farmers. It does not even believe in the Constitution. A living example of this is that the BJP is not implementing the bills passed in the assembly, on which court decisions have also come. This is a very unfortunate situation," the former chief minister of Chhattisgarh and Congress general secretary said. Chaudhary said that in 1994, the then Congress government in Madhya Pradesh had decided to give 14 per cent reservation to the backward classes. After that, the Congress government increased this to 27 per cent in 2003. "But that decision was stayed and it was said that it would be implemented after the elections. Then the BJP government came to power and it was not implemented by the BJP," he said. "The Supreme Court decided to implement 27 per cent reservation on January 28, 2025, and dismissed the PIL filed against it. Even after this, the Madhya Pradesh government did not implement 27 per cent reservation," Chaudhary said. On June 25, he noted, the Supreme Court again said that if "there is no problem with 27 per cent reservation, why is it not being implemented - but even after this comment the government did not take any action". "The BJP government in Madhya Pradesh is depriving the backward class people of their rights," he alleged. MP Congress president Jitu Patwari said OBCs constitute 50 per cent of the population in Madhya Pradesh. "The BJP is basically against OBC, reservations and the Constitution. They do not like social, economic and political equality," he claimed. The Congress state chief demanded that 27 per cent reservation should be implemented immediately and students "who have been harassed for six years should be given appointments immediately". "Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Mohan Yadav should publicly apologise to the people of the state for not implementing the 27 per cent reservation in the state," Patwari said. AICC OBC department chairman Anil Jaihind alleged that "Sangh (RSS) believes in inequality and disparity on the basis of birth while the Congress Party always believes in equality". "RSS does not believe in this Constitution and that is why their leaders keep talking about changing the Constitution," Jaihind said.
