Latest news with #BecketFundforReligiousLiberty
Los Angeles Times
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
California law faces re-write as high court allows parents to ‘opt out' of LGBTQ school stories
California officials must quickly confront a re-write of state policy in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Friday that supporting families that wish to opt their children out of lessons with LGBTQ+ characters and pro-LGBTQ+ themes. The case involved new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks used in pre-kindergarten to 5th-grade classes in Montgomery County, Md., a suburb of Washington. The potential implications go well beyond storybooks and touch on California's approach to education. California law requires students to learn and be provided age-appropriate instructional materials at all grade levels that explain and incorporate the 'role and contributions' of, among others, 'lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.' In some important respects, the California approach to LGBTQ+ inclusion appears untouched. In representing the parents before the Supreme Court, Eric Baxter, an attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said they 'were not objecting to books being on the shelf or in the library. No student has a right to tell the school which books to choose,' he said. Under the Supreme Court's ruling, which appeared to follow this reasoning, California's learning goals can remain unchanged — and they could still remain mandatory policy for local school boards. However, LGBTQ-inclusive lessons would no longer be required material for any particular family that objected to the content. In opposing the Maryland parents, Alan Shoenfeld, an attorney for the Maryland school board, had argued to the justices that the goal for the storybooks was 'to foster mutual respect. The lesson is that they should treat their peers with respect.' However, writing for the high court and the six-justice majority, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that the school district's practices were a form of attempted indoctrination that could conflict with constitutionally protected religious belief. As an example, he wrote that many Americans oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, and yet 'the storybooks ... are designed to present the opposite viewpoint to young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher's instruction. The storybooks present same-sex weddings as occasions for great celebration and suggest that the only rubric for determining whether a marriage is acceptable is whether the individuals concerned 'love each other.'' This reasoning aside, the ruling could leave intact much of California's approach, although no particular family would be forced to learn the state's intended message through its LGBTQ-inclusive content. The ruling raises a score of related issues, such as how an opt-out would apply at different ages. State guidelines note that second-graders, by studying the stories of 'a diverse collection of families,' including those 'with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parents and their children ... can both locate themselves and their own families in history and learn about the lives and historical struggles of their peers.' Storybooks in elementary school are one thing, but what about social studies in high school? The California education code requires that instruction in social sciences include the role and contributions of 'lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans,' among other groups, 'to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.' The new rules of the road could be challenging to administer, as the previous experience of the Maryland district bore out. That school system had originally allowed families to opt out of lessons with LGBTQ-themed storybooks, but so many families did so that the policy was reversed. 'Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parent's religious beliefs,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. 'The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools.' How far the objections could go is another question for California. A group of parents in Los Angeles protested a story book that briefly noted: 'Some children have two mommies or two daddies.' The L.A. school board essentially ignored their objections and then-board president Jackie Goldberg read the entire storybook aloud at a televised Board of Education meeting. 'A great book,' she said after closing the cover. 'I recommend it.' Strong reaction Reaction to the Supreme Court decision arrived quickly from many quarters, including from President Trump, who called it a 'great ruling for parents.' Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the decision 'a drastic break from decades of precedent. 'For the first time now,' she said, 'parents with religious objections are empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption – ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences.' Louisiana Republica Senator Bill Cassidy, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions praised the decision: Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family's religious beliefs.' Supporters of LGBTQ+ rights spoke of another attack from the political right. 'This decision is another wolf in sheep's clothing from a Court that has entirely lost the plot on the separation of church and state,' said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of URGE (Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity). 'The objections of a few religious fundamentalists are being used to override school curriculum selected by an inclusive process driven by educators and experts. This ruling could allow the petty bigotries of any one parent to degrade the education available to all.' But Julianne Fleischer, a Murrieta-based attorney with the law group Advocates for Faith and Freedom, called the decision a 'win for religious liberty.' 'Parents — not the state — are best equipped to make decisions about what their children are taught, especially on sensitive matters involving gender and sexuality,' Fleischer said. 'The government doesn't own our children and this decision rightfully reflects not only the sacred, but legal right of parents to direct their children's religious education. Families should not be forced to choose between their sincerely held religious convictions and participation in public education.' The precedent of sex ed There is an obvious precedent for the opt-out approach: sexual education. In sex ed in California, the curriculum must recognize that people have different orientations and be inclusive of same sex relationships and also teach about gender identity and explore the harm of negative gender stereotypes. At the same time, California, like nearly every other state, allows parents to opt out of sex education classes for their children. In California that has meant families already had the option of avoiding LGBTQ+ content when it came up within the context of sex ed. However, up until now at least, parents could not opt children out of LGBTQ+ content as a standalone topic outside of sex ed. Divided religious communities The Maryland case, Mahmoud vs. Taylor, was pursued by a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents, who sought an order allowing their children to be removed from class during the reading lessons. They said the books conflicted with the religious and moral views they taught their children. A federal judge and the 4th Circuit Court refused to intervene. Those judges said the 'free exercise' of religion protects people from being forced to change their conduct or their beliefs, neither of which were at issue in the school case. The issue has divided religious communities in California, including within the Muslim community, a key constituency in pursuing the Maryland case. 'If books of LGBTQ+ themes are the excuse for the desire to opt out, then who's to say books depicting Black, Jewish and Muslim children and their traditions would not be included to be 'opted out' at a later date?' said Ani Zonneveld, the founder of Muslims for Progressive Values, a Los Angeles-based organization that was part of an amicus filing in the case opposing opt-outs. 'We are not a theocracy. Discrimination should therefore not be permitted in the name of religion.' Tarik Ata, an Orange County-based sheikh, said he supported 'parents' rights to guide their children's moral and religious education.' 'As a member of the American Muslim community, our core values — rooted in religious freedom, family, and respect for differing beliefs — guide our stance on this Supreme Court case,' said Ata, who is a board member of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, which issues guidance on religious issues to Muslim communities. 'In our tradition, parents bear the responsibility for their children's spiritual growth, and when classrooms introduce topics that conflict with deeply held convictions, families should have the right to make choices without penalty or stigma.'
The Hill
20 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court sides with parents seeking opt outs from LGBTQ books in schools
The Supreme Court on Friday in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines ruled in favor of a group of parents in Montgomery County, Md., seeking 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.' 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 as well as 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 are also weighing whether Wisconsin can refuse to extend its religious exemption from paying unemployment tax to Catholic Charities Bureau by questioning whether it has a religious purpose.
The Hill
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Growing consensus on religious freedom benefits everyone, religious or not
In an era of heightened polarization, especially in the nation's capital, it's rare to find a value that unites Americans across political, generational and ideological divides. But one principle is quietly gaining ground: religious freedom — and not just among the devout. Earlier this year, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty released its annual Religious Freedom Index, which revealed that support for religious freedom in the U.S. is not only strong but growing. The index, based on a survey of 1,000 American adults, measures support across six dimensions, from 'Religion in Action' to 'Religious Pluralism.' A score of zero reflects total opposition to all surveyed aspects of religious freedom, while a score of 100 represents complete support. This year's composite score reached a record-high of 70 out of 100 — the strongest since the index launched in 2019. The upshot, according to the report, was that an increasing number of Americans 'crave a culture that values religious freedom — a place where faith is respected, not sidelined.' Why does this matter? Because it signals that Americans — especially younger ones — are beginning to recognize that religious freedom isn't just about religion. It's about liberty. A big part of the story — and a reason for optimism — is Gen Z. When it comes to being open to discussions and expressions of someone's personal faith or allowing for religious expression in the public square, Gen Zers led the way among all age groups. This suggests that the up-and-coming generation is comfortable expressing and encountering differences with others, despite often being portrayed as narrow in thinking. Another bright spot on the index was religious pluralism. Although that metric has historically been strong, this year it climbed to a record high of 86. Even non-Christian respondents were more likely to report feeling accepted. For people of faith, this is good news. But what about those who aren't religious? Is religious freedom a zero-sum right that benefits only the religious? The reality is quite the opposite. In fact, many of the secular constitutional rights we now take for granted arose from religious minorities fighting for their right to preach, proselytize and publish their religious views. Consider Jehovah's Witnesses. During the 1930s and 40s, their public proselytizing and refusal to salute the flag or send soldiers to war led to immense persecution. Many communities used legal means to suppress their preaching. They were arrested for distributing religious tracts without a license and for 'breaching the peace' by playing religious recordings. But they did not back down — they went to court. and they won. Witnesses brought a bevy of cases, resulting in at least 190 appeals and dozens of favorable Supreme Court decisions. Today, those decisions form the backbone of America's robust free-speech case law. Those court victories didn't just affirm the rights of Witnesses and other public preachers. They helped define the First Amendment as we know it. Today, thanks to their efforts, everyone from political canvassers to Girl Scouts can go door-to-door to make their pitch or sell cookies. Activists can protest in public, and students can express themselves on campus. Extending the right to preach can also influence secular movements on a larger scale. The Black civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, for example, might not have been possible, were it not for the free speech, press and petition rights secured by Jehovah's Witnesses. Like the Witnesses before them, Black activists were arrested for going door-to-door to hand out leaflets and for assembling in public spaces. Again, some were arrested for breaching the peace. The late congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis was famously arrested in Selma, Alabama, for carrying a sign outside a courthouse that read 'One Man, One Vote.' Several such cases made their way to the Supreme Court. In case after case, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Black civil rights activists, it relied on the precedents secured by Witnesses. Today, a similar pattern may well continue to play out. When the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a high-school football coach who sought to pray at the 50-yard line after games, its ruling affirmed the rights of other coaches who wish to religiously express themselves. But as a free speech precedent, the decision might also protect a coach taking a knee for social justice. Religious freedom doesn't need to be zero-sum: It can be a rising tide that lifts all boats. It should be something to cheer for, even if you aren't religious. Joshua C. McDaniel is an assistant clinical professor of Law at Harvard Law School and faculty director of the School's Religious Freedom Clinic.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines to halt land transfer that would destroy sacred site for Western Apache
The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to halt a land transfer in Arizona that Western Apache people say will destroy a scared site in order to mine for copper. The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that allowed the transfer by the federal government to go forward. Two conservative justices — Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — dissented. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case. 'Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning,' Gorsuch wrote in dissent. 'I have no doubt that we would find that case worth our time.' 'Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less,' he wrote. 'They may live far from Washington, D.C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference.' Congress approved the transfer of the federal property in the Tonto National Forest in 2014, and President Donald Trump initiated the exchange in the final days of his first term. The land includes a site known as Oak Flat, where native tribes have practiced religious ceremonies for centuries. A non-profit sued the federal government, asserting that the transfer violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause and a law that requires courts to apply the highest level of scrutiny to any law that burdens religious freedom. The Western Apache, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argued the questions at the heart of the case were 'vitally important for people of all faiths.' An adverse decision, they said, would provide 'a roadmap for eviscerating' federal religious protections in other contexts. 'Many sacred Apache rituals will be ended, not just temporarily but forever,' the group told the Supreme Court. The case arrived at the high court before Trump took power again in January. The Biden administration defended the decision in court papers, arguing that 'Congress has specifically mandated that Oak Flat be transferred so that the area can be used for mining.' Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that the land transfer did not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise since it doesn't coerce or discriminate on the basis of religion. But a federal district court in Arizona on May 9 barred the administration from moving forward with the transfer until the Supreme Court decided what to do with the appeal. US District Judge Steven Logan said the case 'presented serious questions on the merits that warrant the Supreme Court's careful scrutiny.'
USA Today
27-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court declines religious freedom case over mining on sacred land
Supreme Court declines religious freedom case over mining on sacred land Show Caption Hide Caption SCOTUS justices clash over ban on gender-affirming care for minors The Justice Department and ACLU argued before the Supreme Court that a ban on gender-affirming care for minors is discrimination based on sex. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on May 27 declined to get involved in a dispute about mining on land sacred to the San Carlos Apache Tribe, a case that religious groups backed to test the scope of a 1993 federal law protecting religious freedom. Dozens of churches and religious groups urged the court to hear the challenge from members of the tribe, who are represented by a prominent religious rights law firm. Lawyers for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said courts are far too apt to dodge the question of what qualifies as an improper burden on religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Two of the court's conservative justices − Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas − said they would have taken the case. Another conservative justice, Samuel Alito, said he did not participate in the decision. Alito did not give a reason for his recusal. The case the court declined to hear involves a section of the Tonto National Forest in Arizona that sits atop the world's third-largest deposit of copper ore. In 2014, Congress handed over 2,422 acres in the region to a private mining company, Resolution Copper, in exchange for other land in Arizona. Apache Stronghold, an advocacy group representing some members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, sued to block the transfer. The Apache Tribe says the site − called Chí'chil Biłdagoteel, or Oak Flat – is their direct corridor to the Creator and is needed for religious ceremonies that cannot take place elsewhere. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government cannot 'substantially burden' a person's exercise of religion without a 'compelling governmental interest.' The federal government said the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the law doesn't apply when the government is dealing with its own property. But Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said it's obvious that tribal members' religious expression is being hampered. 'Of course, it's a burden on their religion when you blow up their sacred site and they can't worship there,' Rienzi said. 'That's just plain English.' The mining company said that interpretation of the law would allow one person to block any use of public land except their own if they sincerely believed some activity − 'be it camping, hunting, fishing, hiking or mining' – destroyed the land's sanctity. Resolution Copper also said its project has the potential to supply nearly one-quarter of the nation's copper needs to help with the transition to clean energy and other national priorities. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Arizona temporarily blocked the federal government from moving forward with the land transfer until the Supreme Court acted on the appeal.
