Latest news with #Alito
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
What the Supreme Court's latest decision on LGBTQ inclusion means for California
Parents with religious objections to schoolbooks that favorably refer to lesbians, gays or transgender people have a right to be notified and remove their young children from class, the Supreme Court has ruled in the latest of a series of cases condemned by LGBT advocates. But it may not be the last word in California. Friday's 6-3 decision in a case from Maryland came a week after the same Supreme Court majority upheld laws in Tennessee and 26 other states denying puberty blockers and other gender-affirming care for transgender minors. A month earlier, the justices allowed President Donald Trump to expel thousands of transgender troops from the U.S. military while it considers his request to ban them from service. Together, the decisions mark a broad shift that California is fighting. Two years ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom imposed a $1.5 million fine on the Temecula Valley Unified School District in Riverside County for rejecting the state's social studies curriculum because it briefly discussed Harvey Milk, the gay-rights leader and San Francisco supervisor. Milk was assassinated in 1978 by former Supervisor Dan White, who also fatally shot Mayor George Moscone. After imposing the fine and shipping a supply of Milk-inclusive textbooks to the Temecula district, Newsom signed a law, Assembly Bill 1078 by Corey Jackson, D-Perris (Riverside County), that prohibits school boards from banning instructional materials because they contain discussions of a particular 'individual or group,' such as Milk and his advocates. The debate — inclusion and trans rights on one side, freedom of speech and religion on the other — was addressed Friday by a different set of referees, the Supreme Court's conservative majority. One of its most outspoken members, Justice Samuel Alito, said the Maryland school district's use of elementary-school textbooks with LGBT characters or themes violated the rights of religious parents to oversee their children's education. 'A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them 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,' Alito wrote. He described one storybook for grades kindergarten through five that showed Kate, apparently a transgender girl, in what Alito described as a 'sex-neutral or sex-ambiguous bathroom,' telling her friends that a bathroom 'should be a safe space.' Another book, titled 'Prince & Knight,' showed two men battling a dragon, then falling in love and marrying with applause from 'the whole kingdom,' Alito said. Even if those books do not expressly endorse LGBT rights, Alito wrote, 'they are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated' and are being presented to 'young, impressionable children' without notification to their parents. He cited the court's 1972 ruling that allowed Amish parents to remove their children from school after the eighth grade, in accordance with their religion, despite a Wisconsin law requiring attendance until age 16. Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling 'invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure' to subjects that displease students' parents. Giving children 'of all faiths and backgrounds … an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society ... is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' said Sotomayor, joined by the court's other two Democratic appointees, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious faiths.' California, unlike Maryland, has a law allowing parents with religious objections to their children's schoolbooks to remove their children from class — but only for classes related to health care. And last month a federal judge in San Diego barred a school district from assigning a book about a transgender child to a fifth-grader in a non-health care class without notifying his parents or allowing them to object. The book, 'My Shadow Is Pink,' tells the story of a boy who likes to wear dresses and is criticized at first by his father, who eventually comes to accept him. It was part of the Encinitas Union School District's 'buddy program' in which fifth-graders use school materials to mentor kindergarteners. Although state law serves 'an admirable purpose' by requiring schools to teach students about the contributions of 'historically marginalized groups,' the district appears to have violated the fifth-grader's constitutional rights by not allowing him or his parents to object, said U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. The district has appealed Lorenz's order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which now can rely on the Supreme Court's analysis in assessing the state law. 'I am very concerned about the practical implications' of Friday's ruling, said Jonathan Glater, a professor of educational law at UC Berkeley. 'If I am a teacher, I might share with all parents a detailed explanation of all materials students might be exposed to, so that they can pull their students out of particular segments. The burden on a school of administrating those opt-outs is clear. And of course, a parental opt-out is highly unlikely to stop kids from talking with each other about the disfavored material; that is not how kids work.' The Supreme Court's ruling drew praise and criticism. Attorney Eric Baxter of the Becket Fund, which represented the Maryland youth's parents, said the court had reaffirmed that 'parents — not government — have the final say in how their children are raised.' But Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, a union representing 2.8 million teachers, said the ruling 'could have a chilling effect on students for generations to come.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who filed arguments with the court supporting the Maryland district, seemed unperturbed. 'By ensuring our curriculum reflects the full diversity of our student population, we foster an environment where every student feels seen, supported, and empowered to succeed,' he said in a statement after the ruling. 'In California, we will continue to remain a beacon of inclusivity, diversity, and belonging.' The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297.
Politico
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
Senate slated to take first vote on megabill Saturday
The Supreme Court has sided with a group of parents demanding that their public schools be required to provide notices to opt their children out of certain storybook readings that conflict with their religious beliefs. Friday's 6-3 ruling, split along ideological lines, found that Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools violated parents' First Amendment rights to religious exercise by not giving them advanced notice or an opportunity to opt their children out of certain lessons. The school board had initially allowed parents to opt out of lessons, but the board's policy reversal in the 2023-2024 school year sparked a legal challenge. The school district said it had withdrawn its opt-out notice policy because it became unmanageable and resulted in reports of high absenteeism to the school board. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and the court's three liberal justices dissented. Alito said the school board's introduction of LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks and decision to end its opt-out policy 'substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners' children.' 'The books are unmistakably normative,' he wrote. 'They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' The decision comes after a group of Muslim, Christian and Jewish parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Education, which oversees Maryland's largest school district, after the board refused to allow parents to pull their elementary school children from lessons with LGBTQ+ themes. Arguments in the case against the Maryland school board focused on whether requiring students to participate in lessons including LGBTQ+ themes could constitute coercion. Justices ruled that the parents suing were entitled to a preliminary injunction while the case is ongoing because they were likely to succeed in their challenge to the board's policies. The high court's conservative majority said the parents hold 'sincere views on sexuality and gender which they wish to pass on to their children.' The court also rejected the school board's argument that the lessons were used only as 'exposure to objectionable ideas' because the books 'unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.' Alito made an example of books about same-sex marriage, saying the storybooks are designed to present a viewpoint to 'young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher's instruction.' He argued that the parents are not seeking 'the right to micromanage the public school curriculum' but instead to opt out of particular lessons 'that burdens their well-established right 'to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children.'' 'Many Americans, like the parents in this case, believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly,' he added. 'The storybooks, however, suggest that it is hurtful, and perhaps even hateful, to hold the view that gender is inextricably bound with biological sex.' He included photos from the book 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' which celebrates a relationship between two men; 'Born Ready,' which highlights a transgender boy's journey; and several other stories on LGBTQ issues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sparred with Alito over the storybooks during oral arguments in the case, wrote the dissent. She said the ruling 'threatens the very essence of public education' and 'constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.' 'The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools,' she wrote. 'Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.'
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with parents seeking opt-outs from LGBTQ books in schools
The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines Friday ruled in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Md., who sought to opt out their children from instruction that uses books with LGBTQ themes. It hands another win to religious rights advocates, who have regularly earned the backing of the high court's conservative majority in a series of high-profile cases. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the six Republican-appointed justices, found the lack of an opt-out option likely substantially burdens parents' constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. The decision sends the case back to a lower court for a final decision on whether that requires the county to provide an opt-out. In the meantime, Alito said the school district must notify parents in advance and enable them to have their children removed from the instruction. 'In the absence of an injunction, the parents will continue to be put to a choice: either risk their child's exposure to burdensome instruction, or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services. As we have explained, that choice unconstitutionally burdens the parents' religious exercise,' Alito wrote. The court's three Democratic-appointed justices dissented. 'The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools,' wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,' Sotomayor continued. 'The harm will not be borne by educators alone: Children will suffer too. Classroom disruptions and absences may well inflict long-lasting harm on students' learning and development.' Check out in-depth Supreme Court coverage in The Gavel, a The Hill newsletter published weekly. Located just across the border from Washington, D.C., Montgomery County runs one of the nation's largest and most diverse public school systems. In fall 2022, the county began introducing books with gay and transgender characters in language arts curriculum in elementary schools. Initially, the county allowed opt-outs before rescinding the option as a flood of parents sought to do so on religious grounds. A coalition comprising an organization formed to fight the policy, and a group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents sued. The parents appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal district judge rejected their bid to require an opt-out option, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in a 2-1 vote. The parents were represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which regularly brings religion cases before the high court. They were backed by the Trump administration, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious groups, more than five dozen Republican members of Congress, 26 Republican state attorneys general and various conservative legal groups. Montgomery County was backed by another coalition of religious groups, Democratic attorneys general from Washington, D.C., and 18 states, the American Civil Liberties Union and LGBTQ advocacy groups. The case is one of several at the Supreme Court this term implicating religious rights. The court deadlocked 4-4 on the bid to create the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school, leaving intact a lower ruling blocking the Oklahoma school's contract. And the justices unanimously ruled Wisconsin must extend a religious tax exemption to the Catholic Charities Bureau, rejecting the state's argument that the bureau did not qualify for the carve-out because its operations were not primarily religious. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Newsweek
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Samuel Alito Says LGBTQ+ Books in School Pose a 'Very Real Threat'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito quoted a five-decades-old case in a decision Friday that favored parents fighting to opt their children out of instruction involving LGBTQ+ books. Why It Matters The case Mahmoud v. Taylor was brought forward May 24, 2023, to the U.S. District Court of Maryland after parents of different religious persuasions claimed that the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) district in Rockville, Maryland, was forcing their pre-K and elementary age children to read LGBTQ+ books. Plaintiffs, which include Christian, Jewish and Muslim parents, argued that their right to religious expression and in turn their First Amendment rights were violated after the school district took away an "opt-out" option for parents uncomfortable with the reading selections in their children's classrooms. What To Know The case was argued on April 22 of this year. Today's 6-3 decision was issued along party lines. In his issued opinion on behalf of the majority, Alito describes the petitioners as parents who come "from diverse religious backgrounds and hold sincere views on sexuality and gender which they wish to pass on to their children." "Today, we hold that the parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction," Alito wrote. "A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them 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." Those petitioners, said Alito, heavily relied heavily on the 1972 Supreme Court case Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which members of the Old Order Amish religion and the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church challenged a conviction of violating Wisconsin's school attendance law by declining to send their children to public or private school after they had graduated from the eighth grade. Newly donated LGBTQ+ books are displayed in the library at Nystrom Elementary School on May 17, 2022 in Richmond, California. Newly donated LGBTQ+ books are displayed in the library at Nystrom Elementary School on May 17, 2022 in Richmond, said the Court in that decision recognized that parents have a right "to direct the religious upbringing of their children" and that such a right can be infringed by laws posing such threats. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, states that this decision "threatens the very essence of public education." "[Public schools] offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society," Sotomayor wrote. "That experience is critical to our nation's civic vitality." Asma Uddin, a professor, lawyer and fellow at the Faith and Media Initiative, told Newsweek via phone that the case is really about pluralism and understanding that this isn't just a question of protecting religious belief or religious exercise but goes beyond that. "Involved in this curriculum is this desire to be inclusive and diverse and to present a fuller idea of the many ways that people are, but it's sort of inherently contradictory when you have that type of curriculum and don't also allow space for dissent," Uddin said. "Because even as the Court pointed out, a true sort of embrace of pluralism is when you create space for these sorts of disagreements as well." Reverend Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, president and CEO of Interfaith Alliance, a national organization that defends religious freedom and multi-faith democracy, told Newsweek via phone that the decision sets "a really terrible precedent" for the future of public education. "I am grateful that in my kids' school they actually learned stories about all kinds of different people, and that other kids get to hear stories about my family," Raushenbush said. "I'm gay and have a husband and we have a family. The opportunity is for public schools to be a really critical building block, even foundation of democracy, where we learn about one another. "We agree that we are different, but that we learn that we will be living side by side and treat one another with respect and understanding." But he says that now, due to decisions like these, it "essentially allows people to opt out of that democracy and that vision of a future together." "It's very distressing for me and sad," he said. He questioned the ramifications of the Court's argument, wondering whether books with Muslim or Jewish characters will be censored in the same vein—or classics from Toni Morrison, or famous literature like To Kill a Mockingbird. The lack of opening these different proverbial doors to youth is very dangerous for building a diverse democracy, he added. "We already are seeing the kind of disintegration of the tapestry that makes up America," Raushenbush said. "The fabric is tearing and this tears it further. "What we really need right now are people who are willing to stitch it together and to find ways that we use different colors. These different races, these different identities of all kinds, are actually stitched together in a beautiful tapestry that represents truly the American promise for all." Uddin said it's not just a question of exposure to ideas but the fact that ideas then seep into a space where there's perhaps sort of normative messaging happening, which creates the religious burden. The facts of any case also differ, she noted, mentioning how this specific school district took away the option for parents to opt-out if uncomfortable. She doesn't expect "slippery slope consequences" to occur. "You can't say something is really important and then give all kinds of other exceptions. … I think that's going to have wide implications in the way that other courts will think about this," Uddin said. "But even before we get to the courts, the way that school districts will design their policies—they're going to think twice about having this total procedural and flexibility, a lack of notice, lack of opt-outs now that the Court has spoken to the constitutional significance of what Montgomery County did." What People Are Saying A spokesperson for the Montgomery Board of Education and Montgomery County Public Schools shared the following statement with Newsweek: "Today's decision is not the outcome we hoped for or worked toward. It marks a significant challenge for public education nationwide. In Montgomery County Public Schools, we will determine next steps and navigate this moment with integrity and purpose—guided, as always, by our shared values of learning, relationships, respect, excellence, and equity." U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon on X: "The Supreme Court's ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor is a major win for religious liberty and parental rights. The Court rightfully held that schools can't shut parents out or disregard their religious obligations to their children. A great day for parents and education champions!" The Heritage Foundation on X: "The Supreme Court's decision in this case is a major victory for parental rights." Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor in a statement: "This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights. It has grave ramifications for the teaching of evolution, for example. Public schools must be grounded in facts and reality and not subject to religious censors."
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
SCOTUS rules in favor of parents seeking to opt children out of reading LGBTQ books
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled in favor of parents seeking to opt their children out of public school instruction that conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs. The case, brought by a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, sought a guaranteed exemption from the classroom reading of storybooks with LGBTQ themes, including same-sex marriage and exploration of gender identity. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson cast the dissenting votes in the 6-3 decision. MORE: Supreme Court leans toward parents in dispute over LGBTQ storybooks in school Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said in the decision that refusing to allow parents to opt-out their kids from instruction that "poses a very real threat of undermining their religious beliefs and practices" violates the First Amendment protections for religious exercise. The Montgomery County Board of Education's "introduction of the 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion," Alito wrote. The court found that the parents are also likely to succeed in their lawsuit over free-exercise claims, and have shown they are entitled to a preliminary injunction while their lawsuit proceeds. In her dissent, Sotomayor accused the court of inventing a "constitutional right to avoid exposure to subtle themes contrary to the religious principles that parents wish to instill in their children." In 2022, after introducing several LGBTQ-themed books into its language arts curriculum, the Montgomery County school board allowed parents to opt out if the content was deemed objectionable as a matter of faith. One year later, officials reversed course and said the opt-out program had become unwieldy and ran counter to values of inclusion. The parents alleged that use of the books in an elementary school curriculum -- without an opportunity to be excused -- amounts to government-led indoctrination regarding sensitive matters of sexuality. The school board insisted the books merely expose kids to diverse viewpoints and ideas. Pending the completion of the legal challenge, the school board "should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction," Alito wrote. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during oral arguments in April that it was poised to establish a right of parents to opt out for sensitive subjects, saying it should be common sense. President Donald Trump called the ruling a "tremendous victory for parents" during a White House press briefing Friday. MORE: Supreme Court upholds Texas' online age verification for porn sites Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, during the briefing, thanked the Supreme Court for the decision, saying that restoring parents' rights to decide their child's education "seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight." "Now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct," Blanche said.
