logo
Supreme Court OKs opt-out for LGBTQ+ materials in school

Supreme Court OKs opt-out for LGBTQ+ materials in school

Politico27-06-2025
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The school district said it had withdrawn its opt-out notice policy because it became unmanageable and resulted in reports of high absenteeism to the school board.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.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's Drug Price Claims Spark Disbelief Online
Trump's Drug Price Claims Spark Disbelief Online

Buzz Feed

time12 minutes ago

  • Buzz Feed

Trump's Drug Price Claims Spark Disbelief Online

Donald Trump's math on cutting drug prices didn't add up. Again. The president this weekend repeated his promise to get pharma companies to lower the cost of medications for Americans, who often have to pay much more for certain drugs than people abroad. But the actual amount of the 'tremendous drop' in cost that Trump boasted about had critics scratching their heads. 'You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%,' Trump said. CNN 'I don't mean 50%. I mean 14, 1,500%,' he added. CNN But as many on social media pointed out, that would mean all drugs are free and people actually get paid to receive them. Trump: You know, we've cut drug prices by 1200, 1300, 1400, 1,500%. I don't mean 50%. I mean 1400, 1,500% — Acyn (@Acyn) August 4, 2025 @Acyn / CNN / Via Also, drug prices haven't actually come down, despite Trump's pressure on pharmaceutical companies. Trump appeared to acknowledge that when he later said, 'We'll be dropping drug prices ... by 1,200, 1,300 and even 1,400% and 500% but not just 50% or 25%, which normally would be a lot because the rest of the world pays much less for the identical drug.' CNN Reality is 'eroding before our eyes,' said one critic. Others agreed. Tomorrow, it'll be eleventy thousand percent, and the media will report it without question, and we'll all shake our heads and move along, and it'll be just another day of reality eroding before our eyes. — Jennifer Erin Valent 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@JenniferEValent) August 4, 2025 @JenniferEValent / CNN / Via Time and again, he's shown himself to be utterly innumerate. — George Conway 👊🇺🇸🔥 (@gtconway3d) August 4, 2025 @gtconway3d / CNN / Via Same guy currently claiming he fired the job numbers expert over bad statistics. — J.J. Abbott (@jjabbott) August 4, 2025 @jjabbott / CNN / Via It's great that we have a numerically illiterate person unilaterally in charge of our tariff policy. — Gregg Nunziata (@greggnunziata) August 4, 2025 @greggnunziata / CNN / Via Wharton (undergrad) called, and they would like their degree back. — Sedge Dienst🇺🇦 (@SedgeDienst) August 4, 2025 @SedgeDienst / CNN / Via 100% would mean all drugs are free. So this is @realDonaldTrump seriously claiming that drug companies are now paying US 14 times the price of our medications just to take them. Dumbest man on the fucking planet. — Andrew—#IAmTheResistance—Wortman (@AmoneyResists) August 4, 2025 @AmoneyResists / CNN / Via I think he MAY have failed first year stats. — Peter Baugh (@PWBaugh) August 4, 2025 @PWBaugh. CNN / Via Is it too much to ask for a president who knows how numbers work. — Michael Freeman (@michaelpfreeman) August 4, 2025 @michaelpfreeman / Via this was in the same discussion in which the president reiterated that he didn't trust the math of the Bureau of Labor and Statistics on the economy: — Edward-Isaac Dovere (@IsaacDovere) August 4, 2025 @IsaacDovere / Via There's a real temptation here to make a joke, or to ask which drugs these are that pharma companies are now paying patients to take, because let's all get in on it! But honestly, all I can feel is sad that someone this stupid could be our president. Again. — Dr. Michelle Au (@AuforGA) August 4, 2025 @AuforGA / Via He lies as he breathes. — Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) August 4, 2025 @WajahatAli / Via

Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue against unsealing grand jury testimony
Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue against unsealing grand jury testimony

CBS News

time13 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue against unsealing grand jury testimony

Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein's former associate Ghislaine Maxwell are arguing against the Justice Department's attempt to unseal grand jury testimony against her, writing in a court filing Tuesday that their client "has no choice but to respectfully oppose" the potential release. "Jeffrey Epstein is dead. Ghislaine Maxwell is not," Maxwell's attorney David Markus wrote in a nine-page filing. "Whatever interest the public may have in Epstein, that interest cannot justify a broad intrusion into grand jury secrecy in a case where the defendant is alive, her legal options are viable, and her due process rights remain." Maxwell — who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for recruiting, grooming and sexually abusing minors — is challenging her conviction, arguing she should've been covered by a non-prosecution deal that federal prosecutors in Florida offered to Epstein and any co-conspirators almost two decades ago. The Supreme Court indicated it will consider whether to hear Maxwell's case in September. Her attorneys also wrote that Maxwell has not been given the opportunity to review the grand jury material to assess the documents. "When Epstein died, prosecutors from the Southern District of New York pivoted and made Maxwell the face of his crimes. She became the scapegoat and the only person the government could put on trial. She was convicted in a media firestorm of false reporting and mischaracterization of evidence," Markus wrote. "Now, with her case pending before the Supreme Court, the government seeks to unseal untested, hearsay-laden grand jury transcripts, which contain statements presented in secret and never challenged by the adversarial process. Maxwell has never been allowed to review those transcripts even though the government did not oppose her recent request to do so." In a court filing last week, the Justice Department admitted that the grand jury transcripts that it is attempting to unseal from the investigations into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell contain testimony from only two law enforcement officers. The grand juries that indicted Epstein and Maxwell did not hear direct testimony from any alleged victims, Attorney General Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told a judge in the Southern District of New York in their attempts to unseal the testimony. In a filing earlier Tuesday, the Justice Department said that the grand jury transcripts it is hoping are unsealed were mostly already made public during Epstein and Maxwell's court proceedings. "The enclosed, annotated transcripts show that much of the information provided during the course of the grand jury testimony—with the exception of the identities of certain victims and witnesses—was made publicly available at trial or has otherwise been publicly reported through the public statements of victims and witnesses," the Justice Department wrote. The government also has asked for until Aug. 8 to decide whether or not they are going to ask for the grand jury exhibits to be unsealed as well, as those "substantive" exhibits that are not currently in the public record. Before a different judge in New York this week, two of Epstein's victims asked for restrictions to be put in place to protect the couple's victims, but were unopposed to the transcripts being unsealed. One victim asked for the judge to "show us all the files with only the necessary redactions!" and "be done with it and allow me/us to heal." They asked that their attorney be able to review the suggested redactions "as they are the ones who also know the victims, their names, their truths and their stories unlike the United States Government who did not and does not even care to know our truth. They would rather ask a convicted imprisoned sex trafficker/ abuser for information," referring to the Justice Department's two-day interview last month with Maxwell. Another victim asked for a third-party review of the files before their release, to "ensure that NO victims names or likenesses are revealed through this release. It is imperative with the scrutiny over this media frenzy that the victims are completely and entirely protected." Last month, a federal judge in Florida denied the Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury material stemming from investigations in 2005 and 2007 into Epstein in the state. That ruling only applied to transcripts of proceedings by federal grand juries that were convened in Florida, and did not apply to the transcripts in New York.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store