Latest news with #JusticeAlito
CBS News
03-07-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Supreme Court rejects case over Montana abortion law requiring parental consent for minors
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to review a blocked Montana law that would require physicians to obtain a parent's consent before performing an abortion on a minor, leaving intact a state high court decision that invalidated the requirement. In rejecting the appeal from Montana state officials, the high court turned away what the officials said was a chance to clarify the scope of parents' right to be informed of and participate in their children's medical decisions, including abortion. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a separate statement respecting the court's decision not to take up the case. Alito said the case is a "poor vehicle" for deciding the question at hand. "It is therefore especially important that the denial of review is not read by interested parties or other courts as a rejection of the argument that the petition asks us to decide," Alito wrote. The long-running dispute dates back to 2013, when the Montana legislature approved the Parental Consent for Abortion Act, which requires physicians to obtain notarized written consent from a parent or guardian before performing an abortion for patients under the age of 18. The law allows a minor who cannot get parental consent to access abortion care through a court order. Before the consent law took effect, in July 2013, Planned Parenthood sued to block the measure as a violation of the Montana Constitution. The Montana attorney general agreed to a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the consent requirement, and it has never gone into effect. A separate state law that requires parental notification before an abortion is performed on a minor is in place. The case languished for several years until the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade. A state trial court ruled that the consent requirement violated the Montana Constitution because it interfered with a minor's right to privacy. The state appealed, and the Montana Supreme Court upheld the district court's decision. It found that when evaluated under the most stringent level of judicial review, strict scrutiny, the consent law was not narrowly tailored to any of Montana's compelling interests that they said justified the requirement. The consent rule, the state supreme court found, violates the "fundamental right of a minor to control her body and destiny," as guaranteed by the state constitution. Montana officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state court's decision earlier this year and warned that its view of a minor's right to privacy under the state constitution threatens parental rights under the federal Constitution to direct their child's medical care, including decisions about abortion and access to contraception. "State experimentation with the scope of a minor's state constitutional right to seek an abortion threatens to erode parents' federal fundamental rights," Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen wrote in urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal. State officials are asking the justices to decide whether a fundamental right to direct the care and custody of their children includes a right to "know and participate in decisions" about their medical care, including getting an abortion. But lawyers for Planned Parenthood urged the high court to turn away the case because it involves unique provisions of Montana's Constitution — one that grants all Montana citizens the right to individual privacy and a second that guarantees minors the same state constitutional rights as adults. State officials, they wrote in a filing, "seek to use the parental right as a cudgel against a minor's rights." "The court's protection of a minor's right to privacy is not any less of a deserving counterweight to the federal Constitution's guarantee of parental rights, simply because that protection inheres in Montana's constitution," Planned Parenthood lawyers wrote. The Montana Supreme Court recognized the right to abortion under its constitution in 1999, and it is legal up to the point of fetal viability. In the 2024 election, Montana voters approved an initiative that amended the state constitution to "expressly provide a right to make and carry out decisions about one's own pregnancy, including the right to abortion."
BBC News
27-06-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
US Supreme Court allows parents to opt out of lessons with LGBT books
The US Supreme Court has sided with parents in the state of Maryland who wanted to opt their children out of reading books with LGBTQ justices voted 6-3 in support of the group of parents who said a curriculum adopted in 2022 by the Montgomery County Public Schools for elementary age children violated their religious rights. The court's majority said the parents who brought the case are entitled to a preliminary injunction while it introduction of the books "along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion", Justice Samuel Alito wrote. The ruling allowed the preliminary relief, arguing the parents showed their case is likely to succeed on its merits, they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in its absence and that an injunction would be in the public interest. The three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion that the result of the case will be "chaos for this nation's public schools"."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 parents' beliefs," she parents involved represent several different faiths, but all oppose their children being introduced to LGBTQ themes. The US Constitution's First Amendment protects the right to freely exercise one's religious beliefs, which the parents argued includes the right to pull their children out of lessons they find also pointed to school rules that allow parents to opt older children out of sex education. The books include Uncle Bobby's Wedding, which tells the story of a girl being told about her uncle's planned gay wedding, and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, about a transgender boy. The parents argued they have no objection to the books being on the shelf or available in the County Public Schools, Maryland's largest school system, added the books in an effort to provide greater diversity in the stories children read. In 2023, it removed the opt-out option because it caused classroom disruption and could expose LGBTQ students to social stigma and a hearing for the case earlier this year, the justices appeared split along ideological lines. The court's conservative majority expressed sympathy for the group's argument. This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.
Fox News
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Supreme Court decides whether to allow parents to shield children from LGBTQ books in school
The Supreme Court held Friday that a group of Maryland parents are entitled to opt their children out of school lessons that could violate their beliefs, in a case centered on religious freedom. The justices decided 6-3 along ideological lines in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can exclude their children from a Maryland public school system's lessons that contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel it conflicts with their religious faith. "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," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. "And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents' acceptance of such instruction." Montgomery County Public Schools began incorporating books into their preschool through 12th grade language arts curriculums a few years ago that featured "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer characters," the school district's attorneys told the Supreme Court. The attorneys said the school district did this as part of an effort to be "culturally responsive" and teach lessons that encourage "equity, respect, and civility." The Maryland parents who sued said in their petition to the high court that the school board introduced books to their elementary school students that promoted "gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance." The parents said the school board initially allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons involving those books but then ceased doing that. They also said the presence of the books created "indirect pressure to forgo a religious practice," which created enough of a burden to violate their religious freedom rights. The parents who brought the suit span a range of religious backgrounds. Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat are Muslim, while others fall under different denominations of Christianity. During oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned an attorney representing Montgomery County schools about whether the books simply existed in the classroom or were actively introduced to the students. The attorney indicated that teachers gave lessons to the students involving the books in question five times during the school year. Rosalind Hanson, a member of the conservative group Moms for Liberty, told Fox News Digital during a recent interview in front of the Supreme Court that she and other parents who helped bring the case were "not trying to change the curriculum" for parents who did support their children being exposed to the books. "The majority of states across the country have said you can have an opt-out for these very sensitive issues and topics, especially because of the religious component, but also because of the age appropriateness," Hanson said. This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.
The Independent
27-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Supreme Court allows Maryland parents to opt children out of classes that use LGBT-inclusive books
A group of religious parents who did not want their children to be read to or be exposed to LGBT+ inclusive books in school, may opt their children out of class, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday. In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative wing of the court, which is often sympathetic to religious rights, sided with a group of religious parents in Maryland in a dispute over whether they could remove their children from classes that used books with LGBT+ themes or inclusivity. The court said it was 'the rights of parents' to bring their children up under a religious belief. "We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children,' Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. For now, those parents may remove their children from the class containing books they disagree with while litigation in the case moves forward. At the center of the dispute are several books that contain LGBT+ characters or storylines in an English language arts curriculum for elementary school-aged children in Montgomery County. To books include Pride Puppy, which takes readers through the alphabet while sharing the story of a girl whose puppy gets loose while at a pride parade. Also, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, a story about a girl who worries she will spend less time with her favorite uncle after he marries his boyfriend. A group of parents in Maryland, from various faith backgrounds, sued the county school board after it implemented the books in the classrooms in 2022 to be more inclusive.
Fox News
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Democrat mother 'absolutely thrilled' as Supreme Court upholds ban on youth transgender treatments
While the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision against youth transgender treatments dismayed many Democrats as a "stunning setback," one member of the party from deep blue California says she "couldn't be happier." "I am absolutely thrilled," Erin Friday, parental rights advocate and lifelong Democrat, told "Fox & Friends First" on Thursday. The Golden State mom and attorney, whose involvement with the transgender issue began when her own daughter briefly questioned her gender, said she felt that her heart had "absolutely burst" and she "broke down in tears" of joy upon hearing the court's decision. Speaking to Fox News' Carley Shimkus, she predicted the ruling will have "far-reaching effects" that go beyond gender interventions on kids and explained that some concurring opinions have established "important" legal precedents for other cases dealing with hot-button transgender issues like biological men playing in women's sports. "What these justices wrote was so important," Friday said. "Justice Alito wrote about sex being biological, and that's going to be used in these sports cases to get the males out of girls' sports." "Justice Thomas wrote extensively about the lack of evidence on these gender interventions on children, what's happening in Europe, and the harms that are being perpetrated on our children in the United States with this so-called gender ideology, and there's some language in this opinion that also destroys the notion that there's even such a thing as gender identity." At the same time, Friday said Congress needs to "save" children in blue states still backing such treatments by taking action to codify a ban on such treatments nationwide. "We need to protect all the children in the United States, not just those who are lucky enough to live in Republican states," she added.
