Latest news with #LGBTQ-inclusive
Los Angeles Times
a day 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.'
Newsweek
a day ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Signals Support for Religious Opt-Outs on LGBTQ Books
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Maryland parents who object to LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks on religious grounds can likely opt their children out of those public-school lessons, reversing lower court decisions that had sided with the Montgomery County school system. Though the decision is not a final ruling, the justices signaled strongly that the parents are likely to prevail, applying the highest level of constitutional scrutiny to the school's policy—a standard that often results in government actions being struck down. Montgomery County schools introduced the books, including "Prince & Knight" and "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," in 2022 as part of a diversity initiative. Initially, the district allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons involving the books, but that policy was later reversed, sparking protests and legal action. The case is one of several this term in which the Court has leaned toward expanding religious rights, amid a national wave of school book bans often backed by conservative groups such as Moms for Liberty. While the Education Department under President Trump dismissed past complaints about such bans, the Court's latest move reflects its growing skepticism of policies seen as limiting religious freedom. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court's final decision day: Top cases to watch
The Supreme Court is set to announce its final slate of opinions Friday, with several blockbuster cases left to be decided before the court's summer break begins. The justices have yet to hand down major decisions expected to implicate porn website rules, LGBTQ books in schools, Louisiana's congressional map and President Trump's efforts to narrow birthright citizenship. Here's a look at the major cases left this term: Birthright citizenship Case name: Trump v. CASA Inc.; Trump v. New Jersey; Trump v. Washington What they're weighing: Can three federal judges block Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide? On Trump's first day back in the White House, he issued an executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil who don't have at least one parent with permanent legal status. Three federal judges issued nationwide injunctions blocking the directive, and the relevant federal appeals courts declined to halt those orders. The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal seeking to narrow the nationwide scope of the lower courts' rulings. It has not yet asked the justices to decide whether the order is constitutional. What it will impact: The scope of power federal judges yield. Racial gerrymandering Case name: Louisiana v. Callais; Robinson v. Callais What they're weighing: Is Louisiana's congressional map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander? This case is the latest stage of the long-running legal battle over Louisiana's congressional map design following the 2020 census. Initially, the Republican-led Legislature overrode the Democratic governor's veto to approve a map with only one majority-Black district. A district court struck it down for likely violating the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. At issue now is a new design, which the Legislature drew with an additional Black-majority district to prevent the courts from taking over. A group of white voters argued the Legislature went too far in boosting Black voter power and that it is now an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment. What it will impact: States' latitude to draw additional minority-majority districts to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. Parent opt-out options for LGBTQ material in schools Case name: Mahmoud v. Taylor What they're weighing: Must Montgomery County, Md., provide parents an opt-out option from LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools? In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools. Initially, parents could opt out, but the county later eliminated the option. A group of parents with religious beliefs at odds with the books' teachings argue the lack of an opt-out option violates their religious rights under the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause. What it will impact: When parents can opt out their children from instruction inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Age-verification laws Case name: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton What they're weighing: Is Texas's age-verification law for porn websites constitutional? Texas's H.B. 1181, passed in 2023, requires websites to verify users that are 18 years or older if the websites' content is more than one-third 'sexual material harmful to minors.' The porn industry, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, is challenging the law, which it claims is materially identical to the federal Child Online Protection Act — a measure the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2002. What it will impact: Similar laws limiting access to online pornography in nearly half the country. ObamaCare Case name: Becerra v. Braidwood Management What they're weighing: Does the structure of the Preventive Services Task Force violate the Constitution's Appointments Clause? The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover preventive services without any cost for the patient. The law empowers the federal Preventive Services Task Force, a group of medical experts, to recommend which services should be covered. A group of individuals and small businesses sued after the task force recommended covering HIV-prevention medication. The plaintiffs contend the task force members are principal officers who needed Senate confirmation under the Constitution's Appointments Clause. What it will impact: The task force's recommendations, which could all be thrown into question if the justices rule against it. Universal Service Fund Case name: FCC v. Consumers' Research; SHLB Coalition v. Consumers' Research What they're weighing: Does the Universal Service Fund violate the nondelegation doctrine? The Universal Service Fund (USF) spends $9 billion annually to subsidize telecommunications services for rural and low-income consumers. A conservative nonprofit asserts it violates the nondelegation doctrine, which prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the executive branch. Congress allows the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to determine how much telecommunications companies must contribute to the fund, which the FCC, in turn, sets based on a private company's financial projections. What it will impact: The court has not struck down a statute under the doctrine since 1935, but anti-regulatory interests are hoping the case will revitalize the doctrine and place more limits on federal agency power. CASES DECIDED Texas DNA testing law The court ruled 6-3 that Texas death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez has the legal right to sue over the state's laws governing DNA testing in a bid to test evidence he says would block his execution. Case name: Gutierrez v. Saenz What they're weighing: Can death-row inmate Ruben Gutierrez proceed in his quest for DNA testing? Texas death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez has sought DNA testing for more than a decade, claiming it will make him ineligible for the death penalty by showing he had no major role in a 1998 robbery and murder. Texas's law only allows DNA testing when favorable results would prove a defendant's innocence, which Gutierrez claims violates due process. He appealed a ruling that he has no legal standing to move forward. What it will impact: The use of DNA as a tool in capital cases. South Carolina's bid to defund Planned Parenthood The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in throwing out a challenge to South Carolina's bid to defund Planned Parenthood. Case name: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic What they're weighing: Can Planned Parenthood challenge South Carolina deeming it an unqualified provider for Medicaid recipients? Known as the free choice-of-provider provision, the Medicaid Act allows recipients to receive health services from any 'qualified' provider. In 2018, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed executive orders deeming abortion clinics unqualified. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a patient challenged McMaster's decision. The Supreme Court heard the state's arguments that private parties have no right to sue under the provision. What it will impact: Whether private parties can enforce the Medicaid Act's free choice-of-provider provision. Suing Palestine The justices unanimously upheld the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. Case name: Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization; United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization What they're weighing: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violate the Fifth Amendment? Congress in 2019 passed a law easing terror victims' ability to seek damages from the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization. The Supreme Court reviewed two lower court decisions ruling the law violates due process by forcing the groups to consent to U.S. courts' authority. What it will impact: Whether Americans injured in Middle East terror attacks can take Palestinian leadership groups to U.S. courts for damages. California's emission standard The court ruled 7-2 that fuel producers have standing to sue over the state's car emissions rule. Case name: Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA What they're weighing: Do fuel producers have standing to sue over California's car emissions rule? The Clean Air Act generally preempts state laws that regulate car emissions. But the law allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to grant California — and only California — a waiver, which the state has used to impose stricter standards. The EPA granted such a waiver during the Obama administration, the first Trump administration partially withdrew it, and the Biden administration reinstated it in 2022. Fuel producers that sued over the reinstatement appealed a lower ruling that found they have no legal standing. What it will impact: Whether the energy industry can revive its effort to axe California's stricter emission standard. Vape product challenges The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that RJ Reynolds Vapor Co.'s lawsuit against the FDA can proceed in the 5th Circuit. Case name: FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. What they're weighing: Where can vape manufacturers sue when the FDA denies a product's marketing authorization? Federal law requires vape manufacturers to receive U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval before marketing their products. 'Any person adversely affected' by a denial can sue in Washington, D.C., or the federal circuit court where they reside. In this case, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. attempted to bring a challenge in the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit by adding as plaintiffs a retail store and a trade association based there. The federal government wants the Supreme Court to shut down the tactic. What it will impact: Whether vape companies can forum shop to challenge FDA denials. Gender-affirming care The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban in a 6-3 vote along ideological lines. Case name: United States v. Skrmetti What they're weighing: Is Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors constitutional? Tennessee's S.B. 1 prohibits health care providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to allow a transgender minor to live consistent with their gender identity. The Biden administration and a group of transgender adolescents and doctors argue the law violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Trump administration abandoned the government's challenge upon taking office but urged the court to still decide the case. What it will impact: Similar laws passed by Republican-led legislatures in roughly half the country. West Texas nuclear facility The court ruled 6-3 that federal law does not provide Texas the ability to sue over the facility's license, allowing it to stand. Case name: Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas What they're weighing: Can the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license a private entity to temporarily store nuclear waste away from the reactor where it was generated? And who can sue? In 2021, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed Interim Storage Partners to store up to 5,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuels for 40 years at its West Texas facility. The commission was appealing two findings that allowed Fasken Land and Minerals and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to block the license. What it will impact: Limits on who can challenge certain federal agency actions. Clean Air Act In the first case, the court ruled 7-2 that the oil refineries must sue in the D.C. Circuit. In the second case, the court ruled 8-0 that that the states can sue in the regionally appropriate circuit. Case name: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining; Oklahoma v. EPA; and PacifiCorp v. EPA What they're weighing: What is the proper venue for lawsuits brought under the Clean Air Act? These cases involve the federal government's bid to move to Washington, D.C., a series of lawsuits brought by Republican-led states and the energy industry challenging EPA actions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is attempting to transfer the first case out of the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit, while the plaintiffs appealed in the other cases after the 10th Circuit agreed to move them to D.C. What it will impact: When more conservative-leaning courts can get involved in key environmental cases. Mistaken FBI raid In a unanimous decision, the court revived the family's lawsuit. Case name: Martin v. United States What they're weighing: Can a family whose house was mistakenly raided by the FBI seek damages from the federal government? The FBI raided an Atlanta family's home — detonating a flash-bang grenade with guns raised — in 2017 before realizing it was the wrong house. The family sued for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but lower courts tossed the challenge. What it will impact: When people injured by certain actions of federal officers can bring damages claims. Mexico's suit against US gunmakers In a unanimous decision, the court ruled Mexico's lawsuit is barred by federal law. Case name: Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos What they're weighing: Is Mexico's lawsuit against the American firearms industry barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)? Mexico sued a group of prominent American firearms companies over their guns turning up in cartel violence, seeking $10 billion and injunctive relief that would change the state of U.S. firearm regulation. But in 2005, Congress passed the PLCAA, which provides broad legal immunity to the gun industry. The Supreme Court heard the gun industry's appeal after a lower court held Mexico's lawsuit falls under an exception to the law's immunity shield. What it will impact: The scope of the gun industry's liability shield. Reverse discrimination In a unanimous decision, the court ruled straight plaintiffs don't have to clear a higher legal bar than minorities. Case name: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services What they're weighing: Do members of a majority group have to clear a higher legal bar than minority groups to win an employment discrimination claim? Marlean Ames alleges the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her because she is heterosexual. Ames unsuccessfully applied for a promotion in 2019, but the job long remained vacant until her boss, who is gay, offered the job to a gay person who didn't apply. Then, Ames says she was given a demotion and replaced by another gay person. A lower court agreed Ames met the normal requirements to bring a federal discrimination lawsuit but ruled against her, saying she needed to additionally prove 'background circumstances' since she was a member of a majority group. What it will impact: How easily white and straight individuals can bring employer discrimination suits. Catholic Charities tax exemption In a unanimous decision, the court ruled Wisconsin violated Catholic Charities' First Amendment rights. Case name: Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission What they're weighing: Can Wisconsin deny its unemployment tax religious exemption to Catholic Charities Bureau? Catholic Charities Bureau, the charitable arm of a Wisconsin diocese, is challenging the state's refusal to grant a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. The exemption requires recipients to be 'operated primarily for religious purposes.' The state and its top court held that the charity does not meet that requirement because it employs non-Catholics, provides services that could be provided by secular groups and does not proselytize. What it will impact: The extent to which states can scrutinize a group's professed religious purpose. Environmental reviews In an 8-0 decision, the court narrowed the scope of environmental review under one of the nation's bedrock environmental laws. Case name: Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo. What they're weighing: Did the Surface Transportation Board conduct a sufficient environmental review in approving an 88-mile proposed railway in Utah? In 2021, the Surface Transportation Board approved plans for an 88-mile railroad in Utah. The parties are battling over the board's review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to consider the 'reasonably foreseeable' environmental effects of a proposed action. Eagle County, Colo., and several environmental groups challenged the approval, arguing the board ignored required upstream and downstream effects. What it will impact: The scope of environmental reviews required by NEPA. Publicly funded charter schools The court failed to reach a decision after deadlocking 4-4. Case name: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond; St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond What they're weighing: Can Oklahoma officials approve the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school? In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved a contract for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would be the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) contested the school's approval. The case tests whether the school complies with the First Amendment's religion clauses. What it will impact: The bounds of religion in publicly funded education. Unreasonable force standard The Supreme Court made it easier to bring unreasonable force claims by ruling unanimously that courts should examine the 'totality of the circumstances.' Case name: Barnes v. Felix Jr. What they're weighing: What legal test governs Fourth Amendment unreasonable force claims? Ashtian Barnes was shot and killed by a police officer during a 2016 traffic stop for driving a rental car that had unpaid toll fees. Officer Roberto Felix Jr. asked Barnes to step out of the car, but the vehicle started moving forward, prompting Felix to shoot Barnes. Barnes's mother sued for damages, claiming Felix used unreasonable force against her son. The justices were to decide whether courts should assess everything that happened during the traffic stop or just the split seconds when the officer feared for his safety. What it will impact: The standard for use of deadly force by police. Ghost guns The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision upheld the Biden administration's rule. Case name: Bondi v. VanDerStok What they're weighing: Is the Biden administration's crackdown on 'ghost guns' legal? In 2022, the Biden-era Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a rule cracking down on 'ghost guns,' subjecting them to background checks, licensing and other requirements. The Supreme Court is reviewing whether that the Biden administration could do so by deeming ghost guns as 'firearms' under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The case did not implicate the Second Amendment. What it will impact: The executive branch's ability to regulate ghost guns without congressional approval.
Axios
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Health care, citizenship and LGBTQ+ rights: Five Supreme Court cases to watch
As the Supreme Court justices prepare to retire their robes for recess, several key cases with massive implications for health care, citizenship and education have yet to be decided. Why it matters: The court has not yet weighed in on a case stemming from President Trump 's effort to redefine birthright citizenship and judges' power to check the president, among other key cases on gender-affirming care, LGBTQ+ materials in schools and health care access. Amid the early months of Trump's second term, lower court judges have erected a number of roadblocks to his administration's sweeping actions — many of which have ended up in the high court's hands. The big picture: The conservative-majority court is poised to release a flurry of opinions ahead of its summer recess. Nationwide injunctions for birthright citizenship One of the biggest cases before the Supreme Court concerns whether Trump can push forward with his attempt to rewrite birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1898. The case before the court is not over whether Trump's policy, which challenges the court's precedent on birthright citizenship protections, is constitutional. Rather, the justices heard May arguments over whether a single district court can freeze a whole federal policy. The Justice Department says no, arguing that courts' rulings should apply only to the parties before them. The court's conservative majority seemed inclined to rein in the orders that have disrupted Trump's agenda, Axios' Sam Baker reported. However, it seemed divided over the proper way to do it. The other side: Liberal Justice Elena Kagan questioned what would happen if the high court decided that lower courts couldn't freeze the citizenship policy nationwide — but then later deemed it illegal. In that time, thousands of children could be denied citizenship. Ultimately, Baker reported, questioning did not paint an especially clear image of how the court will likely rule. Gender-affirming care The highly anticipated decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti could have major repercussions for transgender youth nationwide. It questions whether Tennessee unconstitutionally banned gender-affirming care for minors, but its implications could stretch far past the Volunteer State's borders as the Trump administration and Republican politicians across the country pursue restrictions on trans rights. Since 2021, more than two dozen states have passed laws seeking to restrict youth access to gender-affirming care. Multiple leading medical groups support gender-affirming care for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, but the Supreme Court in December arguments appeared inclined not to overrule state bans. LGBTQ-themed books in schools The Supreme Court will decide whether parents can opt their children out of school curricula that involve LGBTQ+ storylines. Friction Point: The case stems from the addition of LGBTQ-inclusive children's books to a Maryland school district's curriculum. Parents in Montgomery County were initially offered an opt-out, but that policy was later changed. A group of parents sued, arguing their religious freedom was violated because they couldn't opt their children out. During oral arguments for the case, the court appeared likely to back the parents. Planned Parenthood and Medicaid access At the center of the first abortion-adjacent case since Trump's second term began is whether Medicaid patients can choose their provider for services. The case stemmed from South Carolina's push to block Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics from receiving funds through the state's Medicaid program. Medicaid funds can't generally cover abortions, but Planned Parenthood provides other medical services. The state is arguing that Medicaid enrollees don't have the right to sue a state to enforce their ability to see their preferred health provider. Zoom in: The decision will have implications for Medicaid enrollees' ability to freely choose their health provider for any service. But it would have a particularly acute impact for Planned Parenthood, since a large part of the providers' funding comes from Medicaid reimbursement. The Affordable Care Act's preventive services mandate The Supreme Court's decision over the Affordable Care Act's preventive services mandate will mark the culmination of years of legal battles. Context: The ACA requires most private health care plans to cover specific services that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is made up of volunteer experts, recommends. That gives millions access to no-cost cancer screenings, vaccinations and more. A federal appeals court ruled that the task force is unconstitutionally imposing coverage requirements because its members aren't politically appointed. The federal government argues that the HHS secretary has appropriate oversight over the task force. If the court sides with companies challenging the requirement, private health care plans could charge beneficiaries co-pays or deductibles for services that were recommended after the ACA was signed, Axios' Maya Goldman reported.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
LGBTQ+ inclusion in mainstream movies reaches 3-year low, study finds
LGBTQ+ representation in mainstream media keeps plummeting year-over-year, and a new study from GLAAD shows concerning results when evaluating the queer-inclusive projects — from Hollywood's top 10 studio distributors — released in the 2024 calendar year. Sign up for the to keep up with what's new in LGBTQ+ culture and entertainment — delivered three times a week straight (well…) to your inbox! GLAAD's 13th annual Studio Responsibility Index study took into consideration the top 10 studio distributors in Hollywood, as well as their "subsidiary distribution labels and majority-owned streaming services." For context, this list includes A24, Amazon, Apple TV+, Lionsgate, NBCUniversal, Netflix, Paramount Global, Sony Pictures Entertainment, The Walt Disney Company, and Warner Bros. Discovery. The GLAAD study outlines alarming statistics regarding studio films released in 2024. Of note, LGBTQ-inclusive movies now only account for 23.6 percent of all releases from major Hollywood studios in 2024. This is a three-year low that follows 27.3 percent in 2023 and a record-high 28.5 percent in 2022. The report also includes findings such as: Only two films (less than 1 percent of all films tracked) featured transgender characters, and both included either harmful stereotypes or inauthentic characters of color made up just 36 percent of all LGBTQ characters, down from 46 percent in 2023 — the lowest since 2019.A24 was the only studio to receive a "Good" rating, releasing the highest percentage of LGBTQ-inclusive films and breaking its own box office record in the process. 2024 films that passed the Vito Russo Test developed by GLAAD — a set of criteria used to analyze how LGBTQ+ characters are included in a film — include Love Lies Bleeding, Problemista, Mean Girls (2024), Queer, My Old Ass, and Drive-Away Dolls, to name a few. GLAAD President & CEO, Sarah Kate Ellis, wrote in a statement: "This year's findings are a wake-up call to the industry. At a time when LGBTQ people are facing unprecedented attacks in politics and news media, film must be a space for visibility and truth. Representation isn't about checking a box — it's about whose stories get told, whose lives are valued, and creating worlds that mirror our own society today. When done authentically, LGBTQ representation builds audience and buzz, while humanizing LGBTQ people as those in power are actively working to take away our humanity." Overall, GLAAD reports that the "10 distributors tracked in this study released 250 films in 2024." Only 59 films — within that total of 250 releases — contain an LGBTQ+ character. Keep scrolling to discover how each of the top 10 Hollywood studios were rated in this new GLAAD study. Editor's note: All information below provided by GLAAD. Studios listed in alphabetical order. Total films: 16 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 9 Percentage: 56 percent Rating: "Good" Total films: 25 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 8 Percentage: 32 percent Rating: "Fair" Total films: 4 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 1 Percentage: 25 percent Rating: "Insufficient" Total films: 44 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 8 Percentage: 18 percent Rating: "Poor" Total films: 25 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 4 Percentage: 16 percent Rating: "Fair" Total films: 49 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 14 Percentage: 29 percent Rating: "Poor" Total films: 16 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 3 Percentage: 19 percent Rating: "Insufficient" Total films: 33 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 4 Percentage: 12 percent Rating: "Insufficient" Total films: 23 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 5 Percentage: 22 percent Rating: "Poor" Total films: 15 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 3 Percentage: 20 percent Rating: "Insufficient"
