Senate slated to take first vote on megabill Saturday
The Supreme Court has sided with a group of parents demanding that their public schools be required to provide notices to opt their children out of certain storybook readings that conflict with their religious beliefs.
Friday's 6-3 ruling, split along ideological lines, found that Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools violated parents' First Amendment rights to religious exercise by not giving them advanced notice or an opportunity to opt their children out of certain lessons. The school board had initially allowed parents to opt out of lessons, but the board's policy reversal in the 2023-2024 school year sparked a legal challenge.
The school district said it had withdrawn its opt-out notice policy because it became unmanageable and resulted in reports of high absenteeism to the school board.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and the court's three liberal justices dissented.
Alito said the school board's introduction of LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks and decision to end its opt-out policy 'substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners' children.'
'The books are unmistakably normative,' he wrote. 'They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.'
The decision comes after a group of Muslim, Christian and Jewish parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Education, which oversees Maryland's largest school district, after the board refused to allow parents to pull their elementary school children from lessons with LGBTQ+ themes.
Arguments in the case against the Maryland school board focused on whether requiring students to participate in lessons including LGBTQ+ themes could constitute coercion. Justices ruled that the parents suing were entitled to a preliminary injunction while the case is ongoing because they were likely to succeed in their challenge to the board's policies.
The high court's conservative majority said the parents hold 'sincere views on sexuality and gender which they wish to pass on to their children.' The court also rejected the school board's argument that the lessons were used only as 'exposure to objectionable ideas' because the books 'unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.'
Alito made an example of books about same-sex marriage, saying the storybooks are designed to present a viewpoint to 'young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher's instruction.' He argued that the parents are not seeking 'the right to micromanage the public school curriculum' but instead to opt out of particular lessons 'that burdens their well-established right 'to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children.''
'Many Americans, like the parents in this case, believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly,' he added. 'The storybooks, however, suggest that it is hurtful, and perhaps even hateful, to hold the view that gender is inextricably bound with biological sex.'
He included photos from the book 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' which celebrates a relationship between two men; 'Born Ready,' which highlights a transgender boy's journey; and several other stories on LGBTQ issues.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sparred with Alito over the storybooks during oral arguments in the case, wrote the dissent. She said the ruling 'threatens the very essence of public education' and 'constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.'
'The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools,' she wrote. 'Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
NYC's free summer meal program offers halal food, without listing kosher options
The city Department of Education's summer meal program for NYC youths boasts a variety of halal options at more than 25 locations citywide, but kosher food 'must be specially ordered,' officials told The Post. Free breakfasts and lunches will be served at hundreds of locations – schools, pools, libraries and parks – for anyone up to 18 years old, including all students from both public and private schools. 'You don't need to sign up, show any papers, or have an ID to get these meals,' the DOE says. 'Just head to one of our spots and enjoy a delicious breakfast and lunch.' Halal food – permissible for Muslims to eat under Islamic law – is available for the taking by anyone who shows up at the listed locations. Kosher food, for observant Jewish kids, is not mentioned on the DOE website. 4 DOE food worker Maria Gonzalez said she gave out 100 meals from a food truck in Haffen Park in the Bronx on the first day of the free summer meal program Friday. J.C. Rice Only when asked by The Post, the DOE said kosher meals 'must be specially ordered, and they are only available upon request. However we do not currently have any applications for kosher meals.' The glaring omission angered some Jewish advocates. 'The DOE's clear promotion of halal options alongside silence on kosher meals highlights a gap that needs urgent attention,'' said Karen Feldman, a DOE teacher and co-founder of the NYCPS Alliance, which fights antisemitism in the city public schools. 'Jewish families who keep kosher deserve the same outreach to feel fully included in this important program.' 4 A DOE food truck gave out free summer breakfasts and lunches to youths in Prospect Park, Brooklyn. J.C. Rice A similar controversy erupted in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, when the City Council's Jewish Caucus demanded that Mayor De Blasio's DOE include kosher meals along with vegetarian and halal food for Muslims in its free meal program. The DOE does not track students by religion, but an estimated 10 percent of NYC public-school students, roughly 100,000, are Muslim. The number of Jewish kids in NYC public schools is unclear, but 105,776 K-12 students enrolled in private Jewish schools in 2024-2025, said Gabriel Aaronson, director of policy and research for the non-profit advocacy group Teach Coalition. Poverty and hunger plague many NYC Jews, among other groups. The Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty, which serves more than 325,000 clients, says it provides emergency food that meets the cultural and religious dietary needs of both kosher and halal-observant households. 4 Karen Feldman, a DOE teacher and co-founder of a group fighting antisemitism in public schools, faulted the city's free summer meal program's failure to list kosher meals for Jewish kids. Gregory P. Mango The DOE's summer menus offer a variety of halal options it says meet Islamic guidelines. For instance, a breakfast of egg and cheese on a buttermilk biscuit, home fries, and fresh fruit; and a lunch of chicken tenders with dipping sauce, garlic knot and corn. Other halal breakfasts include waffles, zucchini and banana bread, whole-grain bagels and buttermilk pancakes. Lunches feature pizza, mozzarella sticks, beef patties, falafel, chicken sandwiches, veggie burgers and empanadas. Kosher foods meet Jewish dietary laws, including restrictions on certain animals like pork and shellfish, separation of meat and dairy, and specific slaughtering and preparation methods. If ordered, the DOE said, a kosher breakfast would include a muffin, granola or cereal, plus yogurt, an apple, and milk. A lunch would consist of hummus, tuna or egg salad, whole wheat bread, grape tomatoes, apple and milk. 4 The DOE posted July summer meals with multiple halal options, but none for kosher food, angering some Jewish advocates. DOE Last week, the DOE would not detail its preparation or purchase of halal and kosher foods. 'We are thrilled that our summer meals program is returning this year, making sure that our youngest New Yorkers are fed and nourished,'said DOE spokeswoman Jenna Lyle. Funding for the summer meal program comes out of the DOE's yearly $600 million budget for all school food.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: Unprecedented new precedents
Through silence or vocal support, House and Senate Republicans are backing an extraordinary set of new precedents for presidential power they may come to regret if and when Democrats seize those same powers. Why it matters: New precedents are exhilarating when you're in power — and excruciating when you're not. Here are 10 new precedents, all set with minimal GOP dissent: Presidents can limit the classified information they share with lawmakers after bombing a foreign country without the approval of Congress. Presidents can usurp Congress's power to levy tariffs, provided they declare a national emergency. Presidents can unilaterally freeze spending approved by Congress, and dismantle or fire the heads of independent agencies established by law. Presidents can take control of a state's National Guard, even if the governor opposes it, and occupy the state for as long as said president wants. Presidents can accept gifts from foreign nations, as large as a $200 million plane, even if it's unclear whether said president gets to keep the plane at the end of the term. Presidents can actively profit from their time in office, including creating new currencies structured to allow foreign nationals to invest anonymously, benefiting said president. Presidents can try to browbeat the Federal Reserve into cutting interest rates, including by floating replacements for the Fed chair before their term is up. Presidents can direct the Justice Department to prosecute their political opponents and punish critics. These punishments can include stripping Secret Service protections, suing them and threatening imprisonment. Presidents can punish media companies, law firms and universities that don't share their viewpoints or values. Presidents can aggressively pardon supporters, including those who made large political donations as part of their bid for freedom. The strength of the case in said pardons is irrelevant. Between the lines: Friday's Supreme Court ruling limiting nationwide injunctions — a decision widely celebrated by Republicans — underscores the risks of partisan precedent-setting. Conservatives sped to the courts to block many of President Biden's signature policies — and succeeded. But taking those broad injunctions off the table now means they'll also be unavailable the next time a Democratic president pushes an aggressive agenda. That future president will be able to keep implementing even legally shaky policies — just as Trump now can. What to watch: Trump previewed some of those policies at a celebratory press conference on Friday, saying the Supreme Court's ruling cleared the way for executive actions that had been "wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." They include ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, terminating funding for "sanctuary cities," suspending refugee resettlement, and blocking the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care. Axios Zachary Basu contributed reporting.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Attacks on Muslims flood mainstream after Mamdani win
Zohran Mamdani's victory in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary triggered a wave of Islamophobic attacks — including from sitting members of Congress — that once might have disqualified the perpetrators from public office. Why it matters: Openly racist rhetoric has become normalized at the highest levels of American politics. Islamophobic and antisemitic incidents both reached an all-time high in 2024, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Anti-Defamation League, respectively. The mainstreaming of Islamophobic rhetoric in political discourse comes a decade after President Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" as part of his 2016 campaign. Driving the news: Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) urged the Justice Department to denaturalize and deport Mamdani, who was born in Uganda and became a U.S. citizen in 2018. Under federal law, denaturalization is an extreme measure typically reserved for cases involving fraud during the naturalization process. The other side: Mamdani, who would be the first Muslim mayor of New York, has spoken openly about the violent threats and hateful messages he's received throughout the campaign. He told MSNBC that he sees his victory as "an opportunity for me to introduce the fact that being Muslim is like being a member of any other faith." The big picture: The fractured media ecosystem — splintered into hyperpartisan echo chambers — has made the public shaming of racism less effective. Attacks that once would have drawn bipartisan outrage now circulate with impunity — especially on social media platforms, where hate can go viral. The baseless attempts to link Mamdani to Islamist terrorism could alarm some voters, especially amid rising antisemitism in a city that is home to the world's largest Jewish population outside of Israel. Yes, but: Some of Mamdani's loudest critics are already unpopular in New York, raising the possibility that their Islamophobic posts could backfire — and further galvanize his coalition into a history-making victory. Catch up quick: Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, defeated former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo by assembling a young, multiracial coalition in one of the nation's largest and most diverse cities. That coalition included progressive Jewish voters in Manhattan, college-educated liberals in Brooklyn's Park Slope and working-class communities in Queens. Mamdani, currently serving in the New York State Assembly, is of Indian ancestry. He was born in Uganda and moved to New York at age 7. After his victory, MAGA activists and Republican lawmakers took to social media to attack Mamdani's faith, heritage and left-wing politics. "Zohran 'little muhammad' Mamdani is an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York. He needs to be DEPORTED," Ogles posted on X. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) posted an AI-generated image of the Statue of Liberty wearing a black burqa. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) tied Mamdani's victory to what she called America's "forgetting" of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What they're saying: "Wow. Just wow," James Zogby, co-founder of the Arab American Institute, told Axios after reviewing the posts. Zogby said Islamophobia is becoming more brazen because "there are no repercussions." "We see the same Islamophobia from the same bigots anytime a Muslim runs for public office," said Basim Elkarra, executive director of CAIR Action, the political arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "Now it's been normalized." Zoom out: Since Sept. 11, 2001, Muslim and Arab Americans have periodically been the targets of racist and Islamophobic political campaigns. In 2005, then Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) suggested the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if attacked by radical Muslim terrorists. In 2010, the proposed Park51 Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan — branded the " Ground Zero Mosque" by activist Pamela Geller, founder of Stop the Islamization of America — became a national campaign flashpoint. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (R-Mich.), who became the first two Muslim women elected to Congress in 2018, have faced years of Islamophobic attacks from Republicans and conservative media. State of play: Muslim Americans have built broader, multiethnic coalitions and political alliances in recent years. "I don't think [Islamophobia] is going to fly this time," Zogby said. Elkarra echoed that view, saying Mamdani's popularity could help him withstand the wave of attacks he's likely to face. There are currently an estimated 3 to 4 million Muslim Americans in the U.S. Between the lines: Days before the primary, Mamdani became embroiled in controversy for declining to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada" during a podcast with The Bulwark. Mamdani, a longtime critic of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, said the phrase represented to him "a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights." The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) responded by urging all New York City candidates — without naming Mamdani — to "disassociate themselves from and avoid using language that plays into antisemitic tropes." Calls to "globalize the intifada," the ADL said, invoke a decades-old history of attacks on the Jewish people and amount to "an act of incitement that encourages violence against Jews." The bottom line: Mamdani has condemned antisemitism and promised to be a mayor for all New Yorkers — one who will be laser-focused on the city's affordability crisis.
