Supreme Court backs parents seeking to opt their kids out of LGBTQ books in elementary schools
The court on a 6-3 vote backed the parents' claim that the Montgomery County Board of Education's decision not to allow an opt-out for their children violated their religious rights under the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects religious expression.
"The board's introduction of the 'LGBTQ+ inclusive' storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that is often receptive to religious claims. The liberal justices dissented.
The dispute arose in 2022 when the school board in the diverse county just outside Washington revised its English language arts curriculum.
The board determined that it wanted more storybooks to feature LGBTQ elements to better reflect some of the families who live in the area.
Approved books include 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' which features a gay character who is getting married, and 'Born Ready,' about a transgender child who wants to identify as a boy.
The school board said that although the books are in classrooms and available for children to pick up, teachers are not required to use them in class.
Initially the school board indicated that parents would be able to opt their children out of exposure to the books, but it quickly changed course, suggesting that would be too difficult to implement.
Plaintiffs include Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, a Muslim couple who have a son in elementary school. Members of the Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox churches also sued, as did a parent group called Kids First that has members of various faiths.
They said they had a right to protect their children from being taught content that conflicts with their religious beliefs by expressing support for same-sex relationships and transgender rights.
The Trump administration backed the challengers.
A federal judge and the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the school board.
The Supreme Court has in the past backed religious rights in cases involving conflicting arguments made by LGBTQ rights advocates. In one recent ruling, the court in 2023 ruled in favor of a Christian web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
18 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump says Sean ‘Diddy' Combs's past comments make pardoning him ‘more difficult'
Donald Trump says he considers Sean ''Diddy' Combs 'sort of half-innocent' despite his criminal conviction in federal court in July – but the president called pardoning the music mogul 'more difficult' because of past criticism. Trump spoke about Combs during an interview on Friday night on the friendly environs of Newsmax. Combs was found guilty on 2 July of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, with each leaving him facing up to 10 years in prison – but he was acquitted of more serious sex-trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges. 'He was essentially, I guess, sort of half-innocent,' Trump remarked to Newsmax host Rob Finnerty. 'He was celebrating a victory, but I guess it wasn't as good of a victory.' A number of media outlets reported that Trump has been weighing a pardon for Combs, with whom he had partied in public and exchanged mutual declarations of friendship before winning his two presidencies. Trump has built a track record of pardoning convicted political supporters in what has been widely seen as a broader rebuke of a justice system that found him guilty of criminally falsifying business records less than six months prior to his victory in the 2024 White House election. Yet Combs evidently complicated matters for himself by having told the Daily Beast in 2017 that he did not 'really give a fuck about Trump'. And in 2020, when Trump's first presidency ended in defeat to Joe Biden, Combs told radio host Charlamagne tha God that 'white men like Trump need to be banished'. 'The number one priority is to get Trump out of office,' Combs said. Trump seemingly alluded to those comments in his interview on Friday with Newsmax when asked to revisit the concept of pardoning Combs. 'When I ran for office, he was very hostile,' Trump said of the Bad Boy Records founder. 'It's hard, you know? We're human beings. And we don't like to have things cloud our judgment, right? But when you knew someone and you were fine, and then you run for office, and he made some terrible statements. 'So I don't know … It makes it more difficult to do.' Combs was convicted of flying people around the country, including male sex workers and girlfriends, for sexual encounters. He is tentatively scheduled to be sentenced on 3 October and has asked to be freed from custody on a $50m bond while awaiting that hearing. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion At the time of Trump's Newsmax interview on Friday, Combs was being housed at New York City's only federal lockup. Another federal lockup in New York City closed after the 2019 death there of disgraced financier, convicted sex offender and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein while awaiting federal trial. Trump's justice department drew bipartisan political criticism after announcing that it would not release any more documents from the Epstein investigation despite earlier pledges from the president and his attorney general, Pam Bondi, to disclose more information about the case. Amid the furor, Trump has been asked about whether he is mulling a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell, who has been serving a 20-year prison sentence for conspiring with Epstein to sexually traffic and abuse minors. 'Well, I'm allowed to give her a pardon,' Trump has said with respect to Maxwell, who as of Friday had been transferred from a federal prison in Florida to a lower-security facility in Texas. 'But right now, it would be inappropriate to talk about it.'
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Trump makes decision on pardoning P Diddy after conviction
Donald Trump has said he is unlikely to pardon Sean 'Diddy' Combs following the music mogul's conviction for transportation to engage in prostitution, In an interview with Newsmax on Friday, the former president addressed speculation that he might offer Combs a presidential pardon, revealing he had been 'seriously considering' the possibility. However, Trump ultimately suggested the answer would be 'more likely a no'. 'Well he was essentially, sort of, half-innocent. I don't know what they do that he's still in jail or something,' Trump said. 'He was celebrating a victory but I guess it wasn't as good a victory.' EAD MORE: Sharon Osbourne breaks down in tears at Ozzy's funeral in heartbreaking scenes. READ MORE: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are set for new 'goldmine' offer - but could face issue. Combs, 55, was acquitted earlier this month of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges related to ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura and another woman referred to as Jane. But he was found guilty on two federal counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, which was a violation of the Mann Act, and now faces up to 10 years in prison. His sentencing is scheduled for October 3. Trump recalls having a friendly rapport with Combs in the past as they were both prominent figures in New York. But he claimed that their relationship soured after Trump entered politics, pointing to Combs' vocal support of Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential race. 'When I ran for office he was very hostile,' Trump told interviewer Rob Finnerty. 'He made some terrible statements, so I don't know — it makes it more difficult to do.' When he was pressed on whether a pardon was off the table, Trump replied: 'I'd say so.' Behind the scenes, sources previously indicated that the idea of a pardon had moved beyond idle talk and was being taken seriously by the Trump team. One insider told Deadline it had progressed from 'just another Trump weave to an actionable event'. Combs' legal team has already filed for either an acquittal or a retrial. In a strongly worded motion, his lawyers argued that his conviction under the Mann Act was unprecedented and should be overturned. 'This verdict is unsound. And this conviction, rooted in a misapplied, overbroad statute, should not stand,' they wrote, and maintained that all parties involved in the so-called 'Freak-Offs' were consenting adults and that no commercial sex acts had taken place. They also claimed that Combs' activities were in the same vein as producing amateur adult films for private viewing, and therefore protected by the First Amendment. 'The men were paid for their time,' the motion continued. 'They enjoyed the activities and had friendships with Ms. Ventura and Jane and were not merely traveling to have sex for money.' If a full acquittal isn't granted, Combs' attorneys argue a retrial should be ordered due to 'severe spillover prejudice' from the inclusion of inflammatory evidence during the trial, including surveillance footage from a 2016 incident showing Combs physically assaulting Ventura. Combs remains in custody at a Brooklyn detention centre.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
How the courts became the biggest roadblock to Trump's plans
A federal judge's ruling last week to maintain a sweeping nationwide ban on Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order highlights the dizzying legal battle that has defined the administration's opening months, with courts issuing dozens of such sweeping orders to systematically halt abrasive elements of the president's agenda. US district judge Leo Sorokin in Boston rejected Trump administration arguments to narrow his nationwide injunction, a court order that prohibits the federal government from enforcing a law or policy against anyone across the nation, and not just the people who filed the legal challenge. His decision represents just one case in a broader pattern of judicial resistance to Trump administration actions. Courts have issued an estimated 35 nationwide injunctions against various Trump executive orders and policy changes from his inauguration until the supreme court intervened on 27 June, according to a Guardian analysis of court records and Congressional Research Service data. There's no standard legal definition for a nationwide injunction, so it is not possible to provide a single definitive count, but the roughly 35 orders during Trump's second term have halted a broad range of policies, from the president's attempt to end birthright citizenship to restrictions on federal funding for diversity programs and changes to refugee resettlement. In June, the supreme court significantly limited courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, which fundamentally reshaped how opponents can challenge executive overreach and dismantled what some legal experts viewed as the most potent weapon against sweeping presidential policies. Without nationwide injunctions, challengers largely have to now pursue slower class-action lawsuits or file multiple suits across jurisdictions to achieve the same blocking effect, although the supreme court left the possibility for exceptions in some cases like Sorokin's ruling, which found that nationwide relief was necessary to protect Americans from harm. 'President Trump's illegal abuses of power have created widespread harm for Americans across the country including farmers, students, working families and retirees that demanded a national response,' said Donald Sherman, deputy director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 'The supreme court's decision has certainly made it more complex to challenge President Trump's lawless executive actions and put an unnecessary strain on judicial resources, but legal advocates and concerned citizens will not be deterred from holding the administration accountable in court.' During Trump's first presidency, federal courts issued at least 64 nationwide injunctions against his administration, compared with 12 under Barack Obama's eight-year presidency and just six under George W Bush's two terms. The White House has praised the supreme court's June order, saying 'low-level activist judges have been exploiting their positions' to deliberately cut down Trump's policy agenda. Those injunctions were issued by courts in mostly Democratic-leaning states and jurisdictions, including Washington DC, California, Rhode Island, Maryland, Texas, Massachusetts, New York and others, according to a Guardian analysis. Harvard Law Review research from Trump's first term found that 92.2% of nationwide injunctions came from Democratic-appointed judges, while 100% of similar injunctions against Biden came from Republican-appointed judges. The Guardian analysis of the 35 nationwide injunctions issued during the first six months of the Trump administration demonstrates the types of policies that had been blocked by courts using this tool. Immigration enforcement and citizenship changes have prompted at least eight major nationwide injunctions, including in the landmark birthright citizenship case, cases targeting refugee program defunding and deportation accelerations. Federal funding policies have generated a wave of litigation, with at least six injunctions stopping various funding freezes and restrictions, stemming from suits filed by groups including the National Council of Nonprofits targeting funding freezes, and on targeting National Institutes of Health grants by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Policies on diversity, equity and inclusion and civil rights face numerous legal challenges and have resulted in nationwide injunctions in at least five cases, including a suit by the National Association of Diversity Officers fighting restrictions under Trump's executive orders. At least two cases stemming from military service requirements stopped by nationwide injunctions fall into the same category, while federal agency restructuring has prompted suits from multiple state governments and federal employee unions and ended with nationwide injunctions. Some injunctions focused on executive overreach and legal targeting, while additional injunctions stopped emergency tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and restrictions on law firms that previously opposed Trump policies. 'Since the moment President Trump took office, low-level activist judges have been exploiting their positions to kneecap the agenda on which he was overwhelmingly elected,' the White House said in a statement after the supreme court's ruling in June. 'In fact, of the 40 nationwide injunctions filed against President Trump's executive actions in his second term, 35 of them came from just five far-left jurisdictions: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and the District of Columbia.' The Guardian has not been able to identify 40 nationwide injunctions independently. The White House and the Department of Justice have not responded to requests for comment on which injunctions they have on their list. The justice department has reportedly faced difficulties defending the volume of Trump's executive orders, with lawyers struggling to answer judicial questions and correct the record in court, prompting the justice department to seek rapid transfers of attorneys to the division handling Trump policy defenses. The administration is also believed to be testing traditional presidential deference, the longstanding practice where courts generally defer to executive authority for national security and foreign affairs as it defends aggressive immigration, trade and economic policies, while taking the unprecedented step of suing federal judges who issue blocking orders. Legal challenges have also targeted more specific policies, prompting nationwide injunctions in cases targeting restrictions on gender-affirming care in federal prisons, changes to passport gender markers and federal employment terminations affecting thousands of workers. Following the supreme court decision in Trump v Casa in June, courts are now prohibited from issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. But there is an exception, which comes when a judge decides it is the only way to fully protect the people bringing the lawsuit, like in the case of the birthright citizenship challenge. The White House said: 'Now, the Trump Administration can promptly proceed with critical action to save the country – like ending birthright citizenship, ceasing sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping taxpayers from funding transgender surgeries, and much more.' But some legal experts aren't so sure on the long-term impact of the supreme court's restrictions on nationwide injunctions just yet. 'I think it remains to be seen how the practical consequences of the supreme court's decision shake out,' said Barbara McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former Obama-appointed US attorney. 'Several of the justices suggested that class actions would provide a mechanism to block lawless executive orders and prevent irreparable harm, but, of course, class actions can be cumbersome and slower than a simple temporary restraining order. 'We will need to see how lower courts address the supreme court's exception where necessary,' McQuade said. For those in the crosshairs of Trump's policies – like undocumented immigrants facing deportation and non-profits losing federal funding – the harm could be measured in weeks or months. The supreme court's decision hasn't eliminated legal challenges to presidential power, but it has fundamentally altered their speed and scope.
