Latest news with #LGBTQ-themed
an hour ago
- Politics
What to know about the US Supreme Court's ruling on public school lessons using LGBTQ books
A divided U.S. Supreme Court has sided with religious parents who want to pull their children out of the classroom when a public school lesson uses LGBTQ-themed storybooks. The 6-3 decision Friday in a case brought by parents in Maryland comes as certain books are increasingly being banned from public schools and libraries. In Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion — joined by the rest of the court's conservatives — he wrote that the lack of an 'opt-out' for parents places an unconstitutional burden on their rights to religious freedom. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that public schools expose children to different views in a multicultural society. 'That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' she wrote. '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 beliefs." Here's what to know about the case and its potential impacts: The decision was not a final ruling in the case. It reversed lower-court rulings that sided with the Montgomery County school system, which introduced the storybooks in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. At first, the school district allowed parents to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the district later reversed course, saying it became disruptive. The move prompted protests and eventually a lawsuit. Now, the case goes back to the lower court to be reevaluated under the Supreme Court 's new guidance. But the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in this case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the court's ruling could inspire similar lawsuits in other states. 'I think any school district that reads similar books to their children is now subject to suit by parents who don't want their kids to hear these books because it substantially interferes with their religious beliefs," she said. Whether it could open the door to broader legal challenges remains to be seen. Levinson said the majority opinion's emphasis on the content of the books at the center of the case, including 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a story about a two men getting married, could narrow its impact. 'The question that people will ask," Levinson said, 'is if this could now allow parents to say, 'We don't want our kids to learn about certain aspects of American history.' ' Adam Zimmerman, who has two kids in school in Montgomery County, Maryland, called the ruling abhorrent. 'We need to call out what's being dressed up as religious faith and values and expose it for the intolerance that it really is,' he said. Zimmerman has lived in Montgomery County for 16 years and wanted to raise his son and daughter there, in large part, because of the school district's diversity. It was important to him, he said, that his kids be exposed to people from all walks of life. 'It's a beautiful thing, and this ruling just spits on that diversity," he said. Other rights groups described the court's decision as harmful and dangerous. "No matter what the Supreme Court has said, and what extremist groups are advocating for, book bans and other censorship will not erase LGBTQIA+ people from our communities,' said Fatima Goss Graves, CEO and president of the National Women's Law Center. Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was part of an amicus brief filed in the case in support of the Maryland parents, called the ruling a 'win for families.' "Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family's religious beliefs,' he said. Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the parents at the Supreme Court, also called the decision a 'historic victory for parental rights.' 'Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission,' Baxter said. PEN America, a group advocating for free expression, said the court's decision could open the door to censorship and discrimination in classrooms. 'In practice, opt outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold,' said Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney at PEN America. In a joint statement Friday, some of the authors and illustrators of the books in question described the ruling as a threat to First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as diversity in schools. 'To treat children's books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful,' the statement said.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about the US Supreme Court's ruling on public school lessons using LGBTQ books
A divided U.S. Supreme Court has sided with religious parents who want to pull their children out of the classroom when a public school lesson uses LGBTQ-themed storybooks. The 6-3 decision Friday in a case brought by parents in Maryland comes as certain books are increasingly being banned from public schools and libraries. In Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion — joined by the rest of the court's conservatives — he wrote that the lack of an 'opt-out' option for parents places an unconstitutional burden on their rights to religious freedom. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that public schools expose children to different views in a multicultural society. 'That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' she wrote. '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 beliefs.' Here's what to know about the case and its potential impacts: What happens next The decision was not a final ruling in the case. It reversed lower-court rulings that sided with the Montgomery County school system, which introduced the storybooks in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. At first, the school district allowed parents to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the district later reversed course, saying it became disruptive. The move prompted protests and eventually a lawsuit. Now, the case goes back to the lower court to be reevaluated under the Supreme Court's new guidance. But the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in this case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The ruling could have national implications for public education Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the court's ruling could inspire similar lawsuits in other states. 'I think any school district that reads similar books to their children is now subject to suit by parents who don't want their kids to hear these books because it substantially interferes with their religious beliefs,' she said. Whether it could open the door to broader legal challenges remains to be seen. Levinson said the majority opinion's emphasis on the particular books at the center of the case, including 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a story about a two men getting married, could narrow its impact. 'The question that people will ask,' Levinson said, 'is if this could now allow parents to say, 'We don't want our kids to learn about certain aspects of American history.' ' LGBTQ rights advocates slam court ruling Adam Zimmerman, who has two kids in school in Montgomery County, Maryland, called the ruling abhorrent. 'We need to call out what's being dressed up as religious faith and values and expose it for the intolerance that it really is,' he said. Zimmerman has lived in Montgomery County for 16 years and wanted to raise his son and daughter there, in large part, because of the school district's diversity. It was important to him, he said, that his kids be exposed to people from all walks of life. 'It's a beautiful thing, and this ruling just spits on that diversity,' he said. Other rights groups described the court's decision as harmful and dangerous. 'No matter what the Supreme Court has said, and what extremist groups are advocating for, book bans and other censorship will not erase LGBTQIA+ people from our communities,' said Fatima Goss Graves, CEO and president of the National Women's Law Center. Conservative advocates say the case is about parental rights and religious freedom Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was part of an amicus brief filed in the case in support of the Maryland parents, called the ruling a 'win for families.' 'Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family's religious beliefs,' he said. Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the parents at the Supreme Court, also called the decision a 'historic victory for parental rights.' 'Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission,' Baxter said. Other opponents say ruling will have 'broad chilling effect' PEN America, a group advocating for free expression, said the court's decision could open the door to censorship and discrimination in classrooms. 'In practice, opt outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold,' said Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney at PEN America. In a joint statement Friday, some of the authors and illustrators of the books in question described the ruling as a threat to First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as diversity in schools. 'To treat children's books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful,' the statement said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
What to know about the US Supreme Court's ruling on public school lessons using LGBTQ books
A divided U.S. Supreme Court has sided with religious parents who want to pull their children out of the classroom when a public school lesson uses LGBTQ-themed storybooks. The 6-3 decision Friday in a case brought by parents in Maryland comes as certain books are increasingly being banned from public schools and libraries. In Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion — joined by the rest of the court's conservatives — he wrote that the lack of an 'opt-out' option for parents places an unconstitutional burden on their rights to religious freedom. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that public schools expose children to different views in a multicultural society. 'That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' she wrote. '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 beliefs.' Here's what to know about the case and its potential impacts: What happens next The decision was not a final ruling in the case. It reversed lower-court rulings that sided with the Montgomery County school system, which introduced the storybooks in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. At first, the school district allowed parents to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the district later reversed course, saying it became disruptive. The move prompted protests and eventually a lawsuit. Now, the case goes back to the lower court to be reevaluated under the Supreme Court's new guidance. But the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in this case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The ruling could have national implications for public education Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the court's ruling could inspire similar lawsuits in other states. 'I think any school district that reads similar books to their children is now subject to suit by parents who don't want their kids to hear these books because it substantially interferes with their religious beliefs,' she said. Whether it could open the door to broader legal challenges remains to be seen. Levinson said the majority opinion's emphasis on the particular books at the center of the case, including 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a story about a two men getting married, could narrow its impact. 'The question that people will ask,' Levinson said, 'is if this could now allow parents to say, 'We don't want our kids to learn about certain aspects of American history.' ' LGBTQ rights advocates slam court ruling Adam Zimmerman, who has two kids in school in Montgomery County, Maryland, called the ruling abhorrent. 'We need to call out what's being dressed up as religious faith and values and expose it for the intolerance that it really is,' he said. Zimmerman has lived in Montgomery County for 16 years and wanted to raise his son and daughter there, in large part, because of the school district's diversity. It was important to him, he said, that his kids be exposed to people from all walks of life. 'It's a beautiful thing, and this ruling just spits on that diversity,' he said. Other rights groups described the court's decision as harmful and dangerous. 'No matter what the Supreme Court has said, and what extremist groups are advocating for, book bans and other censorship will not erase LGBTQIA+ people from our communities,' said Fatima Goss Graves, CEO and president of the National Women's Law Center. Conservative advocates say the case is about parental rights and religious freedom Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was part of an amicus brief filed in the case in support of the Maryland parents, called the ruling a 'win for families.' 'Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family's religious beliefs,' he said. Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the parents at the Supreme Court, also called the decision a 'historic victory for parental rights.' 'Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission,' Baxter said. Other opponents say ruling will have 'broad chilling effect' PEN America, a group advocating for free expression, said the court's decision could open the door to censorship and discrimination in classrooms. 'In practice, opt outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold,' said Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney at PEN America. In a joint statement Friday, some of the authors and illustrators of the books in question described the ruling as a threat to First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as diversity in schools. 'To treat children's books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful,' the statement said.
GMA Network
4 hours ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
US Supreme Court hands Trump 'giant' win on powers of judges
US President Donald Trump attends the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., April 21, 2025. REUTERS/ Leah Millis/ File photo WASHINGTON, United States — US President Donald Trump hailed a "giant win" Friday after the Supreme Court curbed lone judges from blocking the Republican's raft of controversial policies. The 6-3 ruling, with the court's liberal justices all dissenting, stemmed from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship. The court said individual district judges had likely exceeded their powers by issuing nationwide injunctions, which have also blocked a string of Trump's hardline policies on immigration, diversity and firing federal employees. "The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," 79-year-old Trump told a hastily arranged press conference at the White House. Trump said he would now proceed with "so many policies" that had been "wrongly" blocked, including stopping funding for transgender people and "sanctuary cities" for migrants. His initial reaction to the ruling came in a post on Truth Social, welcomed it as a "GIANT WIN." US Attorney General Pam Bondi, standing alongside Trump at the podium, said the ruling would stop "rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation." Trump separately hailed a "great ruling" by the Supreme Court to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed books at public schools. Critics say the move threatens secular education by opening the door to religious objections. 'Step toward authoritarianism' The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on US soil. But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump's often highly contested policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump—or future US presidents. The Supreme Court's majority decision was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, and joined by the other five conservative justices. "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," wrote Barrett, who has previously been a frequent target of Trump loyalists over previous decisions that went against the president. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling was "nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Democrats swiftly blasted the decision, saying it would embolden Trump as he pushes the boundaries of presidential power in his second term. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it a "terrifying step toward authoritarianism." Trump however rejected concerns about the concentration of power in the White House. "This is really the opposite of that," Trump said. "This really brings back the Constitution." Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by district court judges around the country—both Democratic and Republican appointees—since he took office in January. Courts have, for example, blocked or slowed down his hardline immigration crackdown, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities. 'Lawless actions' Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda. But such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office. The case was ostensibly about Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction. The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters. Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, told AFP that the court's ruling "sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein in lawless actions by the government." Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens. Trump said that the policy "was meant for the babies of slaves," dating back to the US Civil War era in the mid 1800s. — Agence France-Presse
LeMonde
4 hours ago
- Politics
- LeMonde
US Supreme Court hands Trump 'giant' win on powers of judges
US President Donald Trump hailed a "giant win" Friday, June 27, after the Supreme Court curbed lone judges from blocking the Republican's raft of controversial policies. The 6-3 ruling, with the court's liberal justices all dissenting, stemmed from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship. The court said individual district judges had likely exceeded their powers by issuing nationwide injunctions, which have also blocked a string of Trump's hardline policies on immigration, diversity and firing federal employees. "The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," 79-year-old Trump told a hastily arranged press conference at the White House. Trump said he would now proceed with "so many policies" that had been "wrongly" blocked, including stopping funding for transgender people and "sanctuary cities" for migrants. His initial reaction to the ruling came in a post on Truth Social, welcomed it as a "GIANT WIN." US Attorney General Pam Bondi, standing alongside Trump at the podium, said the ruling would stop "rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation." Trump separately hailed a "great ruling" by the Supreme Court to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed books at public schools. Critics say the move threatens secular education by opening the door to religious objections. 'Step toward authoritarianism' The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on US soil. But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump's often highly contested policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump – or future US presidents. The Supreme Court's majority decision was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, and joined by the other five conservative justices. "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," wrote Barrett, who has previously been a frequent target of Trump loyalists over previous decisions that went against the president. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling was "nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Democrats swiftly blasted the decision, saying it would embolden Trump as he pushes the boundaries of presidential power in his second term. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it a "terrifying step toward authoritarianism." Trump, however, rejected concerns about the concentration of power in the White House. "This is really the opposite of that," Trump said. "This really brings back the Constitution." Partner service Learn French with Gymglish Thanks to a daily lesson, an original story and a personalized correction, in 15 minutes per day. Try for free Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by district court judges around the country – both Democratic and Republican appointees - since he took office in January. 'Lawless actions' Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda. But such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office. The case was ostensibly about Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction. The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters. Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens. Trump said that the policy "was meant for the babies of slaves," dating back to the US Civil War era in the mid 1800s.
