The Supreme Court can fix this mess of its own making
This week, the Supreme Court can begin cleaning up a predictable mess — it was predicted by a justice at the time — that it made with a misbegotten decision 20 years ago. The justices in conference on Friday are set to begin considering whether to decide a case that gives the court an opportunity to overturn Kelo, a decision so bad it provoked the passage of many beneficial state laws.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
15 minutes ago
- Fox News
Coming up on Friday, June 27 edition of 'Special Report'
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: President Trump speaks after Supreme Court ruling
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
SCOTUS limits judges ability to stop Trump
The U.S. Supreme Court handed a blockbuster decision to limit judges' from issuing nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of UC Berkeley Law School, weighs in on the court's decision.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: SCOTUS ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor strengthens parents' educational rights, partnership with schools
The U.S. Supreme Court just affirmed that parents have the right and responsibility to direct how their children are taught about moral topics and clarified that schools must accommodate the religious practices of families. This important case is a win for families and the Constitution, and it points the way forward for stronger collaboration between parents and schools. In this case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, a school district in Maryland decided to introduce reading materials on sexuality and gender identity for discussion in early grades of elementary school. Initially, the district agreed to allow parents to opt their children out of these discussions. This is the approach nearly all states, including Maryland, take to parental concerns about sensitive discussions in class. The district, though, later changed its approach and told parents their children would have to participate in these classroom discussions. This created a significant burden on parents who feel they have a religious responsibility to direct how their children are taught about moral issues. A group of parents from different faith traditions challenged that decision in court, eventually leading to this Supreme Court ruling. The Court held that when schools require parents to 'submit their children to instruction that poses 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,' the school must show that it has a compelling reason for doing so. Here, the Court noted, the schools offer many other accommodations for instruction in other areas, so they cannot claim they have an overwhelming reason not to accommodate only religious parents. The Court pointed out that the specific facts of this case, particularly the involvement of 'young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teachers' instruction' and the use of materials that 'explicitly contradict their parents' religious views' compelled its conclusion. This is not the same as simply exposing older children to the existence of different viewpoints on controversial issues. The Court rejected the idea that parents could simply choose other schools: 'It is both insulting and legally unsound to tell parents that they must abstain from public education in order to raise their children in their religious faiths, when alternatives can be prohibitively expensive and they already contribute to financing the public schools.' This decision is a win for the parents. It also establishes important precedent for future conflicts between religious exercise and government regulations. Perhaps not as obvious at first sight is that it helps policymakers who want to facilitate better collaboration between parents and schools. The Court has made clear that simple accommodations, like allowing parents to opt students out of class discussions about sensitive topics, can avoid constitutional conflicts. The principle of accommodation also has implications for other areas of potential conflicts, like whether religious people can serve as foster parents or must pay for abortion coverage in their insurance plans. States can avoid cases like this one by giving parents information about what schools will be teaching in the classroom and proactively adopting accommodations where a government regulation is likely to be at odds with religious beliefs. State legislatures should follow the precedent set by this Court decision and pass or strengthen legislation that codifies such accommodations in law. Education leaders at the district and school levels throughout the country should strive to foster a stronger sense of partnership and collaboration with parents to minimize these kinds of conflicts in the future. If that practice becomes more common — as it should — the Court's decision will yield positive ripple effects far beyond the specific facts of this case.
