U.S. Supreme Court likely to side with Ohio group on student opt-outs for LGBTQ+ lessons
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — The U.S. Supreme Court signaled last week it will likely rule with parents who wish to opt their children out of school lessons that include LGBTQ+ books, agreeing with an Ohio group that intervened in the case.
The nation's top court heard arguments on April 22 in the case against a Maryland school district whose curriculum includes LGBTQ+ books, after lower courts sided with the district and said the books weren't part of 'explicit instruction' on sexual orientation and gender identity. Rather, the materials were included as options within the district's reading list to represent 'a range of cultural, racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds.'
Ohio Supreme Court to decide same-sex parental rights case
The Protect Ohio Children Coalition had joined other similar groups from California, Colorado, Nebraska and Texas in writing an amicus brief against the school district, arguing in favor of opt-outs for parents wishing to remove their students from such lessons, citing an infringement of their religious beliefs.
'The parents have never maintained that the Pride storybooks, or other specified controversial texts, cannot be taught to other [district] students,' the brief said. 'The parents merely do not want their own children to be subjected to what they view as attempted indoctrination.'
LGBTQ+ books on the reading list included titles like 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' about a young girl struggling with her uncle's same-sex marriage, and 'Pride Puppy,' about attendees at a Pride march who band together to find a family's lost dog. The district said those on the list are 'made available for individual reading, classroom read-aloud and other educational activities designed to foster and enhance literacy skills.'
During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts was reluctant to agree with the school board's argument that the curriculum didn't require students to affirm or support the content of the books. Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the books appeared to be presenting children with more than just neutral facts about the LGBTQ+ community.
'It's not just exposure to the idea, right?' Barrett asked. 'It's saying, this is the right view of the world. This is how we think about things. This is how you should think about things. This is like two plus two is four.'
Seven Buckeyes taken on final day of NFL draft while Sanders goes to Browns
Justice Elena Kagan asked whether a ruling for the parents would cause an increase in religious objections and lead schools to abandon aspects of the curriculum because of the difficulty of providing opt-outs. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned if students had exposure to the contested books.
'Haven't we made very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?' Kagan said. 'None of them are even kissing in any of these books. The most they are doing is holding hands.'
A similar argument was previously made by Judge G. Steven Agee of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the lower courts that agreed with the district. Agee said the parents were not able to 'connect the requisite dots' to show that their religious rights were violated, given there isn't proof that a teacher has used the books in a manner that 'coerces children into changing their religious views.'
Protect Ohio Children Coalition joined the amicus brief as the inclusion of LGBTQ+ themes in classrooms is being debated across Ohio, like in the case of a New Richmond teacher who is taking her district to court after she was suspended for having books in her class library with LGBTQ+ characters.
Ohio State faculty vote to join Big Ten alliance against Trump
A Jackson Township school district said in January it will pay $450,000 to a middle school teacher who resigned for refusing to address two transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns after a court said forcing the teacher to use students' preferred names amounted to 'compelled speech.'
The coalition also supported Ohio's 'Parents' Bill of Rights' law, which includes a provision requiring schools to provide parents the opportunity to review instructional material that includes 'sexuality content.' A national crisis hotline said it received a significant increase in calls from LGBTQ+ youth in Ohio within hours after the measure was signed.
A decision in the Maryland case is expected this summer.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Thousands fill Dublin streets for 2025 Pride parade
Roughly 12,500 people took to the streets of Dublin on Saturday, June 28, to march in the 2025 Pride parade. With over 280 different organisations involved, the capital was awash with rainbow colours in a vibrant celebration of the LGBTQ+ community. The parade kicked off on O'Connell Street shortly after 12:30pm, travelling down Eden and Custom House Quay, before crossing Talbot Memorial Bridge to the south side of the Liffey. From there, it moved up City Quay and turned right onto Lombard Street, passing through Westland Row and Lincoln Place and finally concluding at Merrion Square, where the Pride Village awaited. Under the theme 'Taking Liberties', the parade's Grand Marshall was Ruadhán Ó Críodáin, Executive Director of ShoutOut, a charity that promotes inclusion through education by delivering LGBTQ+ programmes in schools, workplaces and service providers. Leading the march was Taoiseach Micheál Martin, who said the occasion was full of 'jubilation and joy'. He added that, with around 100,000 people expected to celebrate Pride in the capital this year, it showed 'Irish people are fully inclusive and fully believe that no individual group should be left behind. Also partaking in the festivities was former senator David Norris, 51 years on from when he attended Dublin's first Pride march in 1974. In his last year as President of Ireland, Michael D Higgins offered his 'warmest greetings' to all those attending the event, saying, 'This annual celebration is a vital affirmation of the rights, dignity, and joy of our LGBT+ communities. 'It is a time, too, to remember with gratitude the courage of those who paved the way for progress when marching was not safe, who gave voice to truths that were long silenced, and who set the foundations for the inclusive Ireland that we continue to strive towards today.' He noted that the 2025 Dublin Pride parade also marks the 10th anniversary of the Marriage Referendum, but added, 'We must also acknowledge that the journey is not complete. A truly inclusive society is one where all can live authentically and creatively, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression, where all can participate fully, and where all voices are not only heard but valued, in all their richness and diversity. 'Pride remains a vital expression of that vision in challenging us to deepen our commitment to human rights, to solidarity, and to the kind of republic that cherishes all of its people equally. 'In a time when hard-won rights are being questioned in many parts of the world, such vigilance and unity are more vital than ever.' The President concluded his statement, writing, 'As I reflect on my terms as President of Ireland, I have been continually inspired by the creativity, resilience, and generosity of spirit shown by Ireland's LGBT+ community. In so many aspects of Irish life, including the arts, activism, education, community-building and public life, your rich and varied contributions have helped to enrich our society immeasurably, widening the circle of belonging for us all. 'May I wish all those marking Pride 2025 the very best as you celebrate and embrace this remarkable festival of equality, respect, and love. 'May this Pride be a time of joy, of solidarity, and of renewed hope as we work to craft a future together that is peaceful, just and inclusive – a future defined by equality and participation of all citizens across the world in all their wonderful diversity.' Did you know that this Pride month you can support GCN by donating €1 when you shop online with PayPal? Simply select GCN at checkout or add us as your favourite charity* at this link to support Ireland's free LGBTQ+ media. *GCN is a trading name of National LGBT Federation CLG, a registered charity – Charity Number: 20034580. The post Thousands fill Dublin streets for 2025 Pride parade appeared first on GCN.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.
I have a deeply held religious conviction that, by divine precept, lying, bullying and paying $130,000 in hush money to an adult film star are all immoral acts. So it is with great thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent ruling allowing Maryland parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve LGBTQ+ material that I announce the following: Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump, including the unfortunate fact that he is president of the United States, place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion. In its June 27 ruling, the high court cited Wisconsin v. Yoder and noted, 'The Court recognized that parents have a right 'to direct the religious upbringing of their children' and that this right can be infringed by laws that pose 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.' Well, I wish to instill in my children the belief that suggesting some Americans are 'radical left thugs that live like vermin' and describing a female vice president of the United States as 'mentally impaired' and 'a weak and foolish woman' are bad things unworthy of anyone, much less a commander in chief. So any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my children under the moral tenets of my faith. (My faith, in this case, has a relatively simple core belief that being a complete jerk virtually all the time is bad.) Opinion: I can't wait to get a Trump Mobile gold phone to pay respect to my MAGA king As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some 'Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.' Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like 'I moved on her like a bitch' and 'she's now got the big phony tits and everything' and 'Grab 'em by the pussy,' that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency. That wish is undermined by any book or teacher exposing my student to the fact that Trump is president. Alito cited several books that were at issue in Maryland schools, including one called 'Love Violet,' which 'follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet's 'heart skip' and 'thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.' Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine's Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and 'galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.'' While my religion would define such a story as 'sweet' and 'loving,' Alito and his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court find it 'hostile' to parents' religious beliefs. Tell us: Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? | Opinion Forum As Alito wrote, 'Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' OK. By that same logic, any class discussion or history lesson involving Trump and his status as president has the potential to teach my children that it's normal to have a president who lies incessantly, demeans transgender people and routinely demonizes migrants. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito's words, be "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' I simply will not stand idly by while a taxpayer-funded school indoctrinates my children into believing a fundamentally dishonest and unkind person like Trump has the moral character to be president of the United States. My faith has led me to teach them otherwise, and any suggestion that Trump's behavior is acceptable would undermine that faith. Opinion: As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in the Maryland case: 'The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers.' Amen to that. I object to the subject of Donald Trump. Let the chaos ensue. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court just saved kids from reading about Trump | Opinion


Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
The struggle that produced Pride
With the joyful unfurling of rainbow flags in Chicago during Pride Month, it's easy to forget the fight that led to this point. The bigotry. The raids on businesses. The social death. The defiant rallies and parades. The legislative tug-of-war. The slow turning of minds and hearts toward seeing members of the LGBTQ community as fellow Chicagoans looking to live faithfully and love openly. Before Pride was about celebration, it was about protest. It was, and still is, about human dignity refusing to cower in the face of hateful opposition. It has taken on weightier relevance today, with the institutional silencing of LGBTQ history and the concerted targeting of transgender people and drag performers. Like that of many big cities, the history of Chicago features major mile markers in the movement for acceptance and enfranchisement. It was here where the first gay rights organization in the United States was founded, by Chicagoan Henry Gerber in 1924. But the most potent decades in the LGBTQ community's fight in Chicago came in the 1970s and '80s, with the early years of the AIDS crisis and the Stonewall riots in New York serving as major catalysts for the urgency of queer Americans to be seen as human. Advocacy, including from Mayor Harold Washington, and pressure from activists led the Chicago City Council to pass the Human Rights Ordinance in 1988 and include sexual orientation in prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation. It was a watershed moment in the city's history because it granted queer Chicagoans equality under the law. These photos of the struggle for equality and justice, curated by Vintage Tribune editor Marianne Mather, depict the passion and persistence of everyday Chicagoans.