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
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
How basic structure doctrine protects constitutional rights
The Constitution of India enshrines a vision of justice — social, economic, and political — and a commitment to equality in status and opportunity. But history has shown us that these ideals are often contested terrain. In the early decades after independence, as India grappled with urgent demands for land reform, social equity, and economic stability, the pillars of democracy — the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary — often stood at odds. From the 1950s until the 1970s, India was crying out for reforms — agrarian and economic. Land redistribution was key, but it clashed directly with the constitutional right to property — then a Fundamental Right under Articles 19 and 31. After years of wars, economic disparities, and political turmoil, public pressure on the government was mounting, and so the government moved to abolish the zamindari system by acquiring private property. But this clashed with the Fundamental Right to Property under Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution. These reforms were challenged in courts; some were struck down. In response, Parliament passed the First Amendment in 1951, introducing Article 31A, Article 31B, and the Ninth Schedule to shield such laws from judicial review. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) was the first case to test this. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo, a zamindar, challenged the First Amendment Act, arguing that the State cannot make any law which takes away fundamental rights. But the Supreme Court disagreed. The court ruled that Parliament could indeed amend the Constitution — including the part on Fundamental Rights. Soon after Shankari Prasad, a Jalandhar-based family, the Golaknaths, which owned vast farmlands, reopened the same questions, challenging the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953. Once again, the spotlight was on a single, seismic question: Could Parliament rewrite the Fundamental Rights? In Golaknath, the Supreme Court — by the slimmest of margins, 6:5 — drew the line. Fundamental Rights are 'transcendental' and 'immutable' — and therefore are beyond the reach of Parliament. This sent shockwaves through political corridors. Riding on a landslide victory in the fifth Lok Sabha elections, the government wasted no time in flexing its muscle. Within five months Parliament bulldozed through the 24th Amendment, expressly granting Parliament the power to amend any provision of the Constitution and tied the President's hands by mandating assent to any constitutional amendment bill. The battle wasn't over. The clash between Parliament's desire for reform and the judiciary's role as guardian of the Constitution was about to reach its biggest showdown in the history of India — Kesavananda Bharti v State of Kerala (1973). Kesavananda Bharti challenged the limit of property one can hold under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The question — can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights — rose again. The courtroom witnessed the finest from the Bombay Bar — Nani Palkhivala, Fali Nariman and Soli Sorabjee — defending the petitioner and a determined HM Seervai represented the government in what would become India's longest argued case with the largest constitutional bench ever assembled. The Supreme Court overturned the Golaknath verdict, ruling that while Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its 'basic structure'. That structure — a democratic, secular, federal republic which preserves separation of powers — is the very DNA of India. It gave birth to the basic structure doctrine, a safeguard against unchecked parliamentary power. But, this legal victory was only the beginning. Two years later, the judiciary faced the same questions at a time when India's political waters churned with unrest. Severe fiscal and oil crises resulted in bold economic reforms. An electoral triumph in light of powerful social movements led a presumptuous government to take drastic steps to cling to power. On June 25, 1975, a national Emergency was declared. Civil liberties were suspended, dissent was crushed, and the very essence of democracy was threatened. The Emergency was more than a political crisis — as the government suspended fundamental rights, the Constitution's basic structure was once again under siege. As we mark 50 years since that day, the lessons remain urgent. The 'basic structure' isn't just a legal doctrine — it's the first and last line of defence. The memory of this dark day urges us to protect judicial independence, civil liberties, and tolerate dissent — because without checks, freedoms, and the liberty to speak out, democracy is just a word. Insiyah Vahanvaty is an author and journalist and Ashish Bharadwaj is professor and dean of BITS Law School. The views expressed are personal.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Court's pivot on social justice
Caste-based reservation in employment is an important feature of the social justice architecture envisaged in the Indian Constitution. It covered the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the early years after Independence, and was extended to the other backward classes (OBCs) after the Centre accepted the Mandal Commission in 1990. Meanwhile, political mobilisations provided the thrust to the making of a legislative climate favourable to the introduction of laws mandating quotas in various public institutions. The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, supported these moves and, in fact, nurtured the vision that some form of affirmative action is necessary to realise the Constitutional ideal of building an egalitarian democracy through judgments that fine-tuned the reservation policy. Ironically, the Supreme Court, which is authorised by the Constitution to set its own rules on its functioning, had forgotten to implement this vision in its institutional structure, though multiple high courts had introduced reservations. PREMIUM Importantly, Justice Gavai's initiative to adopt a reservation-in-promotion policy for the apex court will have a bearing on other public institutions as well. (ANI) Which is why Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai's June 24 curricular, first reported in HT, that introduced a formal policy of reservation in the direct appointment and promotion for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) staff working in the apex court, is historic. To be sure, the policy does not extend to the appointment of judges, though the collegium is trusted to ensure that the judiciary is representative of the larger society. Nor does it extend to OBCs: The lack of compatibility between state and central lists make extending reservation to the OBCs a tricky affair, but surely, the Court will work its way around the problem. Importantly, Justice Gavai's initiative to adopt a reservation-in-promotion policy for the apex court will have a bearing on other public institutions as well. Legal and procedural complications had stymied affirmative action in promotions leading to skewed representation in higher posts. The establishment of a model roster and an updated register are steps that should help ensure internal accountability in promotions. The Supreme Court's experience could offer a template for other institutions, which have been reluctant to crack the glass ceiling in promotions. Besides cementing the legacy of Justice Gavai, only the second Dalit CJI, the initiative has sought to address a major incongruence in the working of the Constitution's social justice vision. Representation is an essential feature of constitutional democracy in India. It's a welcome step when it aligns the apex court with that vision.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday (July 2, 2025), ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by newer state laws regulating the procedure, including statutes that criminalise abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. The ban state lawmakers adopted in 1849 made it a felony when anyone other than the mother 'intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child.' It was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalising abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it. Also read: U.S. Supreme Court's decision on right to abortion is both scorned and praised Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the 1849 ban in court, arguing that it could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent — but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin. Urmanski had asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. The justices concluded that 'the legislature impliedly repealed' the ban 'by enacting comprehensive legislation about virtually every aspect of abortion, including where, when, and how healthcare providers may lawfully perform abortions,' Justice Rebecca Dallet wrote for the majority. 'That comprehensive legislation so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was clearly meant as a substitute for the 19th-century near-total ban on abortion.' In a dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler called the ruling 'a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will." She said the liberal justices based the decision on their personal preference to allow abortions. Urmanski's Attorney, Andrew Phillips, didn't immediately respond to an email Wednesday morning seeking comment. Kaul's spokesperson, Riley Vetterkind, also didn't immediately return an email. Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play a pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The High Court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.
