Parents can opt kids out of LGBTQ+ lessons after court decision: What it means for schools
The nation's highest court has spoken, but the debate over kids' exposure to LGBTQ+ literature and culture in America's schools is far from over.
Religious and conservative parents' rights groups are rejoicing while teachers, authors and civil rights advocates sound an alarm that schools could soon become less inclusive after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to allow parents to pull their children out of classes with material they object to on religious grounds.The divided court sided with a group of Maryland parents who complained that their school district refused to allow them to opt out their kids of English language arts classes when books with LGBTQ+ characters are included.
Parents from Montgomery County Public Schools – which include Muslims, Roman Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox followers – argued the district's policy banning them from opting out intruded on their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.
On June 27, the Supreme Court agreed with them in a 6-3 decision, saying American parents should be able to remove their kids from the lessons to protect their families' religious ideologies.
Books with LGBTQ+ teachings and characters "unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender," Justice Samuel Alito wrote on behalf of the court's majority. The court has long recognized the rights of parents to direct their children's religious upbringing, he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has backed the Maryland school district's policy, said the school district's curriculum, which began to include storybooks for elementary schools with LGBTQ+ characters in 2022, is secular, age-appropriate and designed to be inclusive. The ACLU called the decision "deeply disappointing."
"This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system," Liliana López, a spokesperson for the district, said in an email to USA TODAY on behalf of the school district and the Montgomery Board of Education. "It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community.
Public schools are facing heightened scrutiny over what's taught in their classrooms, increased pressure from conservative parents and additional surveillance over the programs and curriculum they offer to LGBTQ+ youth they serve. The court's decision represents the celebration and panic for parents across the political spectrum.
The Supreme Court's decision advances President Donald Trump's and several conservative parent rights groups' disdain against LGBTQ+ programming in schools. The Trump administration has backed the Maryland parents in the case, saying the schools had put 'a price on a public benefit of public education at the expense of foregoing your religious beliefs.'
GOP leaders: Are calling for religion in public schools. It's not the first time.
What could it mean for school culture?
Fears of an unwelcoming environment in public schools for LGBTQ+ students erupted after the decision.
LGBTQ+ students already face a high chance of rejection, bullying, discrimination and violence at school. These students are at high risk of mental health challenges like depression, anxiety and attempts of suicide, according to data from Child Mind Institute.
Attorneys from the ACLU said the Supreme Court's decision could have "far-reaching consequences for public schools' ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities."
The decision advances the mission of Trump and his education department to ban programming about LGTBQ+ and other social and racial justice issues in schools.
This year, the Trump administration has demanded public schools ax publicly funded programs that support diversity, equity and inclusion in schools. The DEI programming includes those that offer LGBTQ+ students support.
The U.S. Department of Education cannot directly control classroom curriculum, which is in the hands of the states. But it has said it will slash their federal funding for violating a federal civil rights law if they do not comply with the order. (Thousands of schools in more than a dozen states have objected.)
With the Supreme Court decision, the outcomes "could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society," said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
Mach called religious freedom "fundamentally important." But he said that freedom "shouldn't force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don't align with their families' religious views."
Parents who say schools shouldn't be the ones to teach their kids about these issues anticipate a more welcoming place for their families.
'This is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission," said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at The Becket Fund, a nonprofit, public-interest legal and educational institute with the mission of protecting free expressions of faiths. "Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents—not government—have the final say in how their children are raised."
Meanwhile, teachers are bracing for how the ruling could affect their lesson plans, students and classrooms.
'By creating new, unnecessary legal rules that burden hardworking educators and disrupt their ability to teach, the Court is effectively inserting itself into the day-to-day education decisions about what students can learn and what educators can teach," according to Miguel Gonzalez, a spokesperson for the National Education Association.
LGBTQ+ advocates See Trump's actions on Pride Month as 'bullying'
What about religion in schools?
Religious groups have applauded the Supreme Court's decision.
Their support comes during a GOP wave calling for more religion in schools.
Oklahoma's top education official has ordered public schools to teach the Bible. He also wanted state funding for a controversial religious charter school before that idea was shut down by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year in a deadlocked 4-4 decision.
Louisiana leaders directed schools to display the Ten Commandments, but that has been blocked by a federal court. Texas leaders proposed a curriculum that incorporates biblical lessons. Parents and faith leaders have filed a lawsuit against it.
Some school administrators and civil rights advocates have fought back, saying these mandates violate students' rights. Cecillia Wang, a national legal director of the ACLU, said she is worried about the court's decision to side with parents on this case because it could affect schools' ability to implement lessons in the future that may "trigger religious objections."
"For the first time now, parents with religious objections are empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption – ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences," Wang wrote in an email.
How about book bans?
The Maryland parents who sued the school district said they don't want the books removed from schools. But Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for free speech advocacy group PEN America, said further book bans across the nation's public schools are likely as a result of the court's decision.
"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," Brinkley said. "This will exacerbate that devastating trend."
A majority of the 16,000 books banned in schools since 2021 are LGBTQ+ themed, according to data from PEN America. The group's data shows book bans nearly tripled during the 2023-2024 school year, with over 10,000 books banned in public schools.
Parents who have argued for book bans across the nation often say that the content is inappropriate for a school setting. Or they disagree with the content in the literature and don't want their kids to be exposed to it.
A group of authors and illustrators named in the Maryland case said they disagree with the court's decision. Those include the authors and illustrators of LGBTQ+-themed books: "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," "Jacob's Room to Choose" and "Love, Violet."
"We believe young people need to see themselves and families like theirs in the books they read; this is especially true for LGBTQ+ children and LGBTQ+ families," they wrote in an email. "And all children need to learn how to share their classrooms and communities with people different from themselves. Books can help them understand one another and learn to treat each other with acceptance, kindness and respect."
United States public schools Banned over 10K books during 2023-2024 academic year, report says
Contributing: Maureen Groppe, Thao Nguyen; USA TODAY
Contact Kayla Jimenez at kjimenez@usatoday.com. Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Department of Justice sues Washington over ‘anti-Catholic' law
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – The United States Department of Justice is suing the State of Washington over a new law some have deemed 'anti-Catholic.' The lawsuit stems from , which requires clergy members to report child abuse and neglect, even if the information is shared with a priest during confession. The bill was signed into law by Washington Governor Bob Ferguson in May and takes effect July 27. On Monday, The DOJ filed a motion to intervene — or a motion to join — an existing lawsuit against the state that was filed by the Archdiocese of Seattle. These are the Pacific Northwest wines that won big at the 2025 Decanter World Wine Awards The DOJ argues that the Washington state law violates the free exercise of religion for all Catholics because it requires priests to break the confidentiality seal of confession, which could lead priests to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The DOJ claims this violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. 'Laws that explicitly target religious practices such as the Sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church have no place in our society,' said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Oregon appeals court finds gun forensics method is not 'scientifically valid' 'Senate Bill 5375 unconstitutionally forces Catholic priests in Washington to choose between their obligations to the Catholic Church and their penitents or face criminal consequences, while treating the priest-penitent privilege differently than other well-settled privileges. The Justice Department will not sit idly by when States mount attacks on the free exercise of religion,' Dhillon added. The Justice Department's motion to intervene is pending before the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Tacoma. In a statement to KOIN 6 News in response to the DOJ's suit, Governor Ferguson said, 'It is disappointing, but not surprising, to see the DOJ seek to shield and protect child abusers.' Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now A spokesperson for Washington Attorney General Nick Brown told KOIN 6 News that Brown's office does not comment on most pending litigation, noting they are reviewing the complaint and will respond in court. Washington State Senator Noel Frame (D-Seattle), who is the prime sponsor of SB 5375, added, 'We must take every step possible to make sure kids are safe. That's why I championed this bill and that's why it passed with bipartisan support. This law brings us in line with the majority of other states that require clergy to be mandatory reporters of abuse and neglect. We also join six other states – including Texas and Oklahoma – that require the reporting of abuse learned during penitential communication, including confession.' 'Whether you're from a red state or a blue state, keeping kids safe from abuse should be a non-partisan issue,' Frame continued. Portland bar hosts 'In Bed By 10' happy hour DJ parties The DOJ's filing comes after the Archdiocese of Seattle filed a lawsuit against Washington over the law, with Archbishop Paul D. Etienne releasing a statement in May threatening to excommunicate Catholic clergy who follow the law. Archbishop Etienne cited Acts 5:29, 'We must obey God rather than men,' saying, 'this is our stance now in the face of this new law. Catholic clergy may not violate the seal of confession – or they will be excommunicated from the Church. All Catholics must know and be assured that their confessions remain sacred, secure, confidential and protected by the law of the Church.' The Archbishop added that the church agrees with protecting children and preventing child abuse, noting the Archdiocese of Seattle already has mandatory reporter policies for priests. However, those rules don't apply to information received during confession. 'Transformational partnership': Pac-12 reaches deal with CBS for football, men's basketball games 'During Confession, penitent Catholics confess aloud their sins to a Catholic priest, asking God for forgiveness,' the lawsuit argues. 'The seal of confidentiality is, therefore, the lifeblood of Confession. Without it, the free exercise of the Catholic religion, i.e. the apostolic duties performed by the Catholic priest to the benefit of Catholic parishioners, cannot take place.' Meanwhile, others argue that the law is not 'anti-Catholic,' rather, the law is focused on protecting children and getting abusers off the streets. In a phone call with KOIN 6 News, Mary Dispenza — representing the Pacific Northwest branch of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests — said it is 'absurd that they would file a suit' because SB 5375 is advocating to protect children. 'It's hard for me to believe that a bishop would file a suit,' Dispenza said, adding that the bill 'is not anti-Catholic. It's the best of Catholicism.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Watched the Democrats Lose Muslim Support Last Election. This Gave Me Hope for 2026.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. In late May, I joined roughly two dozen Muslim entrepreneurs, community leaders, nonprofit organizers, and student activists around a very large table for a closed‑door strategy meeting with Newark Mayor Ras Baraka. There was no other press, no recording. Emgage Action, a leading Muslim American advocacy organization, welcomed me to observe on the condition that before I quoted anyone, I would first get their consent. We were there to discuss the role of Muslims in the Democratic Party. Many in the room had grown convinced that national Democratic leaders prefer the Muslims in their party to stay quiet and fall in line. In 2024 national party leaders all but ignored months of protests in support of Gaza, backed on-campus police crackdowns, then blamed 'disinformation' when Muslim and Arab American voters staged protest abstentions that helped tip Michigan, Minnesota, and key New Jersey counties to Donald Trump. Many in the room saw that sequence as Democrat leadership's agenda coming down to 'Please hold your nose,' and proof the party values Muslim turnout but not Muslim input. Baraka's counter‑thesis was simple: Fight for them, and they'll fight for you. It is the opposite of what Muslim organizers say they experienced from party leaders in 2024, the cycle Democrats lost to Donald Trump. When Baraka arrived in the room where we waited, it was just after 8 a.m. He was tieless, wearing a solid‑black dashiki, and he spoke softly at first, almost cautious. If anyone expected the fiery mayor who had dominated cable news earlier in the week—handcuffed by federal agents and hauled into an Immigration and Customs Enforcement jail—they found a calmer figure instead. Five days before this gathering, Baraka had joined three members of Congress at Delaney Hall, the recently reopened ICE detention center in Newark, the city he governs. They intended a surprise inspection. Video shows agents ordering them off the property; Baraka complied, stepping back onto the public sidewalk. They arrested him anyway. By that evening, supporters from civil‑rights and faith groups, including Muslim organizers, were rallying outside the detention center where he was being held. He was released that night; the trespass charge evaporated in court 10 days later. But even as the Department of Homeland Security dropped the charges against him, it brought new ones against Rep. LaMonica McIver, one of the lawmakers he had been with.* The whole thing had been a jarring experience, and Baraka has been blunt: 'It's just authoritarianism. … These people are committed to this foolishness. They're going to go as far as they can to not look completely ridiculous because what they did was wrong. They had no jurisdiction over there in the first place.' In that closed-door meeting, the questions posed to Baraka circled three themes: affordability, taxes, and Palestine. Two of those topics are par for the course, though the Newark mayor certainly has thoughts on them. On Palestine, Baraka had a real chance to differentiate himself from the rest of the Democratic party. When multiple attendees referenced student sanctions and job losses across industries in response to their stances on Gaza, Baraka replied that Muslims should be able to criticize U.S. or Israeli policy without being labeled unpatriotic or antisemitic. Throughout, he linked those answers to a wider critique of his own party. 'The leadership of the party has been pretty docile and comfortable and have completely isolated their base across the country.' His prescription was the opposite of caution. 'We can't move in a timid fashion. We have to move with force, with courage, with strength, and we have to move together.' The room nodded, but the primary electorate had a different answer when it came to the race for the Democratic candidate for New Jersey governor. Two weeks later Baraka lost decisively to Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a Navy pilot turned moderate whose campaign leaned on the county machines, saturated the suburbs with ads about property taxes, and avoided Gaza discourse almost entirely. Sherrill's pitch was electability: She promised to 'keep New Jersey blue' without scaring swing voters in Bergen and Monmouth. Baraka, who came in second, couldn't match her donor network and party support that still decides most downballot races. New Jersey is home to an estimated 320,000 Muslims, about 3.5 percent of residents. In 2021 Phil Murphy won reelection by roughly 85,000 votes. Despite those numbers, many of the Muslim community leaders I spoke to voiced their disapproval of how state and national strategists have long treated them as an afterthought—phoning in Eid greetings, skipping hard policy conversations, and assuming they'll continue to view the Democratic Party as their home regardless of outreach or collaboration. Baraka's strategy was different—he focused on reaching out to them. This, however, seemed to double as a flex to show the problem with complacency: If a bloc this large can be energized in an off-cycle primary, what could it do in a presidential year? Baraka spent one of his last days before the primary courting the population, and I tagged along. When I asked his main objective for the tour, he said he wanted to 'galvanize the Muslim community in New Jersey. If we do that, that will be good.' His theory was straightforward: turn a reliable but under-organized bloc into a decisive one and show national Democrats what they risk when they take that bloc for granted. Baraka's Muslim itinerary tracks almost perfectly with census clusters and past underperformance, like Paterson and North Brunswick. I followed Baraka north to Paterson, home to one of the nation's largest Palestinian communities. The visit was brief. He introduced himself as a candidate for governor in cafés on Main Street and took quick photos with voters. One man called out 'Barakah!'—pronouncing it like the Arabic word for 'blessing'—before snapping a selfie. Another passerby whispered, 'That's the guy Trump arrested.' Where party strategists in 2024 feared alienating moderates, Baraka has spent his state-wide campaign courting voters the party lost. Where operatives believed that Gaza activism endangered swing districts, Baraka has argued that silence costs more. Muslim organizers note that only a few statewide Democrats have held unrestricted Q&A's with them since last cycle. Baraka's willingness to do so anchors his appeal. Baraka's grassroots strategy lost—but it still netted 163,563 votes, enough to lift him surprisingly to second place and to carry New Jersey's most populous county, Essex. Those numbers didn't carry him past Sherrill, yet they did remind operatives that a bloc the size of New Jersey's Muslim population matters to the statewide margin. Now that the governor's race is over, Muslim leaders sound cautiously optimistic. They want movement—on surveillance reform, on ceasefire resolutions, on small-business aid—before they'll call this a realignment. But they also say the door is now open. If statewide Democrats walk through it before 2026, Baraka's unsuccessful bid could mark the start of a voter bloc returning to a party that once counted on it. If they don't, the silence of 2024 might echo again when the presidential race comes calling.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NC State professor breaks down SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship, impact on North Carolina
RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) — A major Supreme Court ruling Friday appears to clear the way for President Donald Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship, but NC State political science professor Steven Greene said it is not clear if that is feasible – or how exactly it will impact North Carolina. Greene said it is important to note the Supreme Court's ruling did not take a position on the issue of birthright citizenship itself. The case dealt with Trump's executive order aimed at getting rid of birthright citizenship, specifically on an injunction handed down by a federal judge which blocked the executive order from taking effect. 'What the supreme court ruled is that a single federal judge cannot make a nationwide policy ruling against the government,' Greene explained. By ending the injunction, the ruling does appear to let Trump's executive order move forward. The order denies automatic citizenship to children born to parents who are not US citizens or legal residents. Greene said that is more complicated than it seems. 'It's not entirely clear, honestly, how exactly the Trump administration will look to enforce this, whether that gets enforced one way in red states that want to cooperate versus blue states that don't,' he said. North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson released a statement Friday: 'Because we took action to defend the Constitution, North Carolinians still have their Fourteenth Amendment right to full citizenship. While this case has been sent back to a lower court for review, our position remains unchanged. The language of the Fourteenth Amendment is clear, and we are going to defend it.' Greene said that likely means not much will change right away. 'The executive branch in North Carolina, as much as Republicans have tried to take power away, still has a Democratic governor, a Democratic attorney general, who would not at all be interested in trying to cooperate with these kinds of policies unless they absolutely had to, probably under court order,' he said. Greene said the biggest impact of Friday's ruling has little to do with birthright citizenship. He said the decision limits the court's ability to balance the president. 'It really does seem to free up President Trump to be able to do more,' he said. Greene also said birthright citizenship as a practice will probably come before the Supreme Court, and he thinks it is unlikely justices will rule against it. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
