Major split in US education unions as NEA blasts, AFT backs parental rights ruling by Supreme Court
In a rare and public divide, the two largest teachers unions in the US—representing nearly 5 million educators combined—have taken opposing stances on a major Supreme Court decision involving parental rights and LGBTQ-themed content in public school curricula.
The 6-3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor allows parents in Maryland to opt their children out of classroom lessons that include LGBTQ topics if such material conflicts with their religious beliefs.
The case has not only stirred debate across the country but also exposed fault lines within the leadership of the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), two organizations that traditionally align closely on education policy and political matters.
Union leaders react sharply to landmark ruling
NEA President Becky Pringle sharply criticized the decision, claiming it undermines professional educators and harms students. As reported by Fox News, Pringle posted on BlueSky, 'Students pay the price when books are censored and educators are silenced.' She added that the court had 'failed students' and 'ignored the expertise of trained educational professionals,' calling the ruling 'shameful.'
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
People Aged 50-85 With No Life Insurance Could Get This
Reassured
Get Quote
Undo
The NEA, which represents more than 3 million educators, has long opposed efforts to restrict access to books or materials that reflect LGBTQ identities and experiences.
In contrast, AFT President Randi Weingarten expressed a more nuanced position, emphasizing the importance of parental involvement and local decision-making. According to Fox News, Weingarten said, 'We have to respect all children and all families.
Bad facts make bad law. Mahmoud should have been worked out on a local level, it's a shame it went all the way to SCOTUS.' She added, 'Parents must have a say about their own kids—they are our partners in education.
'
Weingarten had echoed similar sentiments earlier this year during oral arguments, telling Fox News, 'This is something that has to be happening at the local level and not in the Supreme Court,' and noted that the books in question are not ones she would personally read to children.
Unions typically united on social issues
Both Pringle and Weingarten have historically shared political alignment, having endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race. The current divide is notable given their longstanding opposition to conservative-led education policies, including book bans and curriculum restrictions.
Despite her statement supporting parental input, Weingarten has previously pushed back on book challenges.
In 2023, she launched the 'Freedom to Teach and Learn' hotline to report attempts at banning educational content, accusing 'MAGA lawmakers' of using 'culture wars to divide communities,' as reported by Fox News.
Other Supreme Court decisions announced
The Mahmoud v. Taylor decision was one of several education-related rulings announced the same day. While details of other cases were not immediately available, the court's docket indicated a focus on First Amendment concerns and the balance between public education standards and religious liberties.
This split between the NEA and AFT highlights growing tensions within US education policy—where cultural, legal, and parental rights debates continue to challenge traditional alliances and educational norms.
Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
India's legal system avoids sweeping lower court injunctions recently curtailed by US Supreme Court
Written by Swapnil Tripathi President Donald Trump's second term has seen a surge in executive orders, including the withdrawal of diversity and inclusion mandates and a recent order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. To date, he has signed 164 executive orders. Several of these orders have been subject to legal challenge, with federal district courts granting interim relief in the form of nationwide stays on their implementation. Last week, the US Supreme Court ruled on this practice in Trump vs CASA, holding that lower federal courts cannot grant universal stays prohibiting the enforcement of executive orders and must confine relief to the parties before them. This development raises an important question: Could a district court in India exercise similar powers? The US Constitution establishes a federal structure where powers are divided between the federal and state governments, each with its own constitution, legislature, executive, and judiciary. Disputes arising from federal executive action or legislation are adjudicated in the federal courts. These courts follow a three-tier hierarchy: District courts, courts of appeals, and the US Supreme Court. District courts, at the base of this structure, have the authority to review executive actions for their conformity with the Constitution and federal law. They can grant interim injunctions, including nationwide stays, and may ultimately strike down the action as unconstitutional. In contrast, India's constitutional architecture provides for a single, unified judiciary. While India adopts a quasi-federal model with a division of powers between the Union and the states, the judiciary remains integrated. It comprises district courts, high courts, and the Supreme Court, functioning within a hierarchical framework. Unlike their American counterparts, Indian district courts are confined to civil and criminal matters under statutory law and lack the authority to entertain constitutional challenges to executive action or legislation. This power lies exclusively with the Supreme Court and the high courts. Under Articles 32 and 226, respectively, both courts can directly hear petitions for the enforcement of fundamental rights and issue writs or interim orders, including staying or striking down executive and legislative action. Although high courts have fixed territorial jurisdiction, they can entertain challenges to the central government's actions if the cause of action arises within their territory. This ensures that litigants need not approach the Supreme Court in the first instance for relief against Union's action. Since the adoption of the Constitution, high courts have often acted as first responders in constitutional litigation. Within the first year itself, laws abolishing the zamindari system were challenged before multiple High Courts, with the Patna High Court striking down the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Similarly, in Tara Singh vs State, the Punjab High Court struck down Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code — the erstwhile sedition provision — as violative of the right to freedom of speech. The importance of empowering both the high courts and the Supreme Court to review executive action became particularly evident during the Emergency (1975–77). When the President suspended the right to approach courts for enforcing key fundamental rights, including the right to life, thousands were detained. Despite this suspension, nine high courts entertained habeas corpus petitions and held them maintainable where detention orders were contrary to law or vitiated by mala fides. Although these decisions were later overruled by the Supreme Court in the infamous ADM Jabalpur case, the episode highlights the value of concurrent constitutional forums. The availability of multiple judicial avenues meant that, even when the Supreme Court ruled against the detainees, the high courts had, at least for a time, provided a measure of protection. This capacity for different forums to reach different conclusions highlights why constitutional powers were vested in both levels: To ensure multiple judicial voices and, in moments of institutional failure, offer alternative avenues for relief. Unlike their American counterparts, Indian courts are generally reluctant to stay the operation of legislation or executive action. In Bhavesh Parish vs Union of India (2000), the Supreme Court held that courts must exercise judicial restraint and intervene only where the provisions are 'manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional'. This high threshold reflects the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of legislation. Among recent challenges, the Court has declined to stay the operation of the Citizenship Amendment Act and its rules, the law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, and the Waqf (Amendment) Act. However, this institutional design creates the possibility of conflicting decisions across high courts. It is common for a central government action to be challenged simultaneously before multiple High Courts, resulting in inconsistent rulings — one court staying or striking down the action, while another upholds it. A contemporary example is the challenge to the Information Technology Rules, 2021, governing online intermediaries, where some courts granted stay orders while others declined to do so. In such situations, parties often approach the Supreme Court, which typically adopts one of two approaches: First, transferring all proceedings to a single high court to ensure uniformity, as it did in the challenges to the IT Rules by designating the Delhi High Court as the exclusive forum; or second, transferring the proceedings to itself, as seen in the petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage. India's system, by design, avoids the kind of sweeping trial-court-level injunctions recently curtailed by the US Supreme Court. By reserving these powers to the constitutional courts, it maintains a clear appellate structure and prevents conflicting orders from subordinate forums. At the same time, by empowering both the high courts and the Supreme Court, it preserves multiple avenues for citizens to challenge government action, even if that occasionally results in divergent rulings across high courts. The writer is a lawyer currently pursuing a DPhil in law at the University of Oxford
India.com
32 minutes ago
- India.com
Gangs, Guns And City On Edge: How Organised Crime Is Governing Delhi's Streets
New Delhi: Beneath the gleaming surface of Delhi's urban sprawl lies a dark undercurrent, one carved up by bullets, extortion calls, and social media threats. The capital's organised crime network is not just alive, it's thriving, evolving, and expanding its grip over the city's economic and social fabric. The city, which is often called the seat of political power and the face of modern India, now also bears another identity, as a capital carved up by gang warfare. Behind the glass towers and political corridors, the city's streets are being quietly and systematically redrawn, not by planners, but by gangsters. This isn't just hyperbole. According to reports, the Centre recently informed the Supreme Court that Delhi hosts 95 active gangs, a stark indicator of the crisis' scale. The city's criminal landscape has evolved over decades, shifting from older groups like the Kishan Pehalwan and Anoop-Balraj gangs of Najafgarh to modern networks such as the Bishnoi and Sangwan gangs. These groups have grown beyond local thuggery; many now coordinate operations internationally. The result is a metropolis plagued by turf wars, extortion rackets, and targeted killings, with law enforcement frequently playing catch-up. Their influence spans Rohini, Najafgarh, outer Delhi, Gurgaon, and even parts of Noida and Ghaziabad, forming a loose but deadly confederacy across the NCR. Why Delhi is fertile ground for crime But a strong question that shoots up is, why does Delhi breed gangs like this? Because the city makes it easy. Reports indicate that Delhi's fractured borders with Haryana and Uttar Pradesh provide criminals easy escape routes and logistical depth. Dense jhuggi clusters offer foot soldiers anonymity, while under-policed areas provide space to operate. In a city of over 30 million, invisibility has become a weapon, one that the state has yet to neutralize. According to police dossiers and court filings, over 1,100 gangsters are facing trial in more than 5,000 criminal cases. Leading groups like the Lawrence Bishnoi and Hashim Baba gangs run rackets in land, liquor, arms, cyber fraud, and extortion, targeting builders, businessmen, and social media influencers. Despite arrests, these syndicates thrive, using encrypted calls, WhatsApp threats, and social media 'status videos' to intimidate, becoming digital-age dons. Operation Kavach and policing challenge Faced with this spiraling menace, the Delhi Police have intensified multi-agency offensives, such as Operation Kavach. The latest Operation Kavach 8.0, a narcotics-plus crackdown conducted on June 18–19, 2025, led to 139 arrests in 24 hours across all 15 districts, involving over 350 teams. This resulted in 133 NDPS cases and multiple arrests under the Excise and Arms Acts, underscoring the force's commitment to dismantling organised crime. Cases registered under MCOCA and the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provisions have also strengthened legal tools to tackle syndicates. Yet, experts caution that arrests alone are insufficient. Gangs often reconstitute faster than law enforcement can dismantle them, calling for faster trials, community policing, and enhanced tech-driven intelligence to support police efforts. This crisis didn't emerge overnight; it is the result of years of systemic neglect, weak policing, and political indifference. Despite the visible escalation, Delhi Police have made significant efforts against organised crime through coordinated multi-agency operations and legal reforms. However, limitations in manpower, resources, and coordination, compounded by the transnational nature of many gangs, continue to hamper effective enforcement. While the police may arrest local foot soldiers, the masterminds still call the shots from Dubai, Canada, and the UK, mocking the very idea of law and order in the national capital. What was once a street-level turf war has now metastasised into a full-blown parallel economy, with extortion, arms trafficking, contract killings, cyber-rackets, and real estate muscle forming the backbone of operations. From college politics to contract killings If we dig deeper, we find that the roots of some of Delhi's most notorious gangs trace back to college politics and local street feuds. Reports reveal that the decade-old, infamous Gogi–Tillu rivalry was born in the corridors of Swami Shraddhanand College and has since escalated into a deadly conflict, with over 150 members booked for crimes ranging from extortion to murder. Inside Tihar: Prisons becoming gang HQs What makes Delhi's underworld uniquely dangerous is the control gang leaders continue to exert from inside Tihar Jail. On the morning of May 2, 2023, infamous gangster Sunil Balyan, aka Tillu Tajpuriya, leader of Delhi's Tillu gang, was brutally murdered by four members of the rival Gogi gang inside the high-security ward of Central Jail No. 8, Tihar Prison. This chilling incident exposed how gangs have transformed prisons into their operational headquarters. Delhi vs Mumbai's Underworld Delhi's gang landscape is far more fragmented and volatile than Mumbai's old underworld. Unlike the centralized D-Company model, Delhi's gangs operate without a clear hierarchy, where even small groups of four can be classified as organised units. This fluidity leads to constant shifting alliances, with gangsters moving between networks for profit or revenge. Hotspots like Najafgarh, Narela, and Rohini have become infamous not only for turf wars but also for illegal arms trafficking and contract killings. Conclusion: Battle ahead What does it say about a city where the judiciary is hearing reports of 95 active gangs, and where teenagers are lured into becoming hitmen for Rs 30,000 and an Instagram shoutout? This isn't just about crime. It's a mirror to Delhi's governance vacuum, where politics, policing, and social neglect collide. Delhi's gang crisis is no longer hidden; it's in court filings, jail corridors, Instagram feeds, and broad daylight shootouts. If India's capital, with all its political power and legal machinery, can't rein in its underworld, what hope remains for the smaller towns that feed into its bloodstream? The statistics are chilling, the faces are getting younger, and the silence is turning deadly. This isn't just a crime wave, it's a collapse of governance. Where policing falters, politics looks away, and opportunity disappears, violence takes root. The battle ahead isn't only about arrests; it's about restoring trust, law, and dignity to a city whose underworld now threatens to overshadow its democracy.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
TN BJP slams MK Stalin govt over attack on journalist, demands immediate action
Chennai: Tamil Nadu BJP spokesperson A.N.S. Prasad has strongly condemned the brutal attack on journalist Silambarasan in Salem district, alleging a complete administrative breakdown under the DMK government and rampant collusion between officials and the sand mafia. Prasad said the incident exposes the growing impunity enjoyed by criminal networks involved in illegal sand mining across the state, and accused the ruling DMK regime of turning a blind eye to the ongoing plunder of Tamil Nadu's natural resources. Journalist Silambarasan was attacked in Velliyampatti near Salem while reporting on red sand theft. According to Prasad, over 30 members of the sand mafia brutally assaulted the reporter, issued death threats, seized his camera, and cut its cables in an attempt to destroy evidence. 'What's worse,' he alleged, 'is that there are credible reports suggesting that the local Tahsildar and the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) were complicit in this attack. This is not just a law-and-order failure—it's a collapse of governance.' ANS Prasad demanded that Chief Minister M.K. Stalin take immediate steps to clamp down on illegal sand mining, which he said has reached unprecedented levels under the current regime. 'The Goondas Act must be invoked against these sand mafia criminals. Their properties and vehicles should be confiscated, and those aiding them within the government must be identified and punished,' he said. He also urged the state to provide journalist Silambarasan with full police protection, stating that 'an honest reporter has risked his life to expose corruption. The government has a duty to ensure his safety.' Prasad accused officials in the Water Resources Department and various district administrations of aiding and abetting the illegal mining racket. The BJP spokesperson demanded a comprehensive intelligence-led investigation to identify and dismiss corrupt government personnel involved in the racket. Quoting Enforcement Directorate reports, Prasad claimed that illegal financial transactions worth Rs 4,730 crore have been linked to the sand mafia in Tamil Nadu. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court, in response to a 2018 petition by Alagarsamy, had ordered Tamil Nadu and four other states to submit reports on illegal sand mining by January 2025. Demanding justice, Prasad called for the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to thoroughly investigate the sand mining network and administrative collusion. 'This attack on journalist Silambarasan is not an isolated case. It reflects the growing threat to free speech and the safety of whistleblowers under the DMK government,' Prasad said.
