Latest news with #Levinson
7 hours 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
8 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
8 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.
Fox News
6 days ago
- Fox News
Israel recovers remains of three more bodies held by Hamas: 'No victory until last hostage returns'
Israel recovered the bodies of three more hostages held by Hamas following the terror group's attack on Israel in October 2023. The remains of the three hostages were recovered by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a special operation on Saturday and have been identified as Ofra Keidar, Yonatan Samerano and Shay Levinson, according to the Hostages and Missing Families Forum Headquarters. "Our hearts are with the Keidar, Samerano, and Levinson families today," the organization said. "Alongside the grief and pain, their return provides some comfort to the families who have waited in agony, uncertainty and doubt for 625 days." The group added that the return of all hostages is essential for national healing and recovery. The Israeli Defense Forces also confirmed that the three hostages' remains had been recovered from Gaza. The bodies of Keidar, Samerano, and Levinson were recovered during a special operation carried out by the IDF and the Israel Security Agency (ISA) on Saturday. The IDF credited "precise intelligence received from the ISA, the Hostage Task Force, and the IDF Intelligence Directorate" and said it extends "condolences to the families and will continue to make all efforts possible to bring home all the hostages." Keidar, a resident of Kibbutz Be'eri, was kidnapped on Oct. 7, 2023, by Hamas terrorists "while taking her usual morning walk through the fields she loved," according to the Hostage Families Forum. She worked on a dairy farm for 30 years, caring for newborn calves and "was a dedicated worker with exceptional physical strength," the organization said. "Later, she moved to the local petting zoo, where she worked for 15 years, and even after reaching retirement age, she never slowed down." "Anyone who visited her home could see her greatest loves, aside from her family – her dogs, especially poodles, and tending to her garden and houseplants," the forum added. The IDF noted that Keidar, who was 71 at the time of her death, "was a mother of three and the wife of Shmuel Keidar, who was also murdered by Hamas terrorists in their home in Be'eri." Samerano, who was 21 at the time of his death, "was brutally murdered and abducted from Kibbutz Be'eri on October 7, 2023, by Hamas terrorists, including a UNRWA employee, after fleeing the Nova music festival," according to the IDF. Yonatan, or "Yonati" as his friends and family called him, "was always surrounded by friends – a talented DJ who just wanted to make music, bring joy, and travel," the Hostage Families Forum said. "Even at his young age, he was an entrepreneur at heart and a savvy businessman who dreamed of developing his career in event production." Levinson, a staff sergeant and tank commander in the "Oz" (77) Battalion, "engaged and fought terrorists on the morning of October 7 and fell in combat," according to the IDF. "He was then abducted by Hamas terrorists." Levinson, who was 19 years old at the time of his death, is remembered as "a quiet and exceptional young man – ambitious and driven, who pushed himself to excel in sports and every field that interested him," the Hostage Families Forum said. "Shay, a resident of Givat Avni in the Lower Galilee, was an outstanding player on the M.S. Eilabun volleyball team – a team that serves as a model for Jewish-Arab cooperation," according to the organization. "Shay chose to forgo the opportunity to receive active athlete status and instead chose meaningful combat service in the IDF."
21-06-2025
- Politics
Family of ex-FBI agent presumed dead in Iran hopes talks with US can lead to return of his remains
WASHINGTON -- The family of a retired FBI agent presumed dead after vanishing in Iran 18 years ago is calling for any deal between the United States and Iran to include the return of his remains. Robert Levinson disappeared on March 9, 2007, when he was scheduled to meet a source on the Iranian island of Kish. For years, U.S. officials would say only that Levinson was working independently on a private investigation. But a 2013 Associated Press investigation revealed that Levinson had been sent on a mission by CIA analysts who had no authority to run such an operation. The U.S. government in 2020 said that it had concluded that Levinson had died while in the custody of Iran. The family at the time said that it did not know when or if Levinson's body would be returned for burial but vowed that those responsible for his death would ultimately face justice. "We want to make sure that our dad is not forgotten,' Daniel Levinson, one of Levinson's sons, said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press on Friday. The younger Levinson said that as President Donald Trump signals an interest in diplomacy over Tehran's nuclear program that could avert direct U.S. military involvement in Iran's war with Israel, now is the time for Washington to use its 'leverage to hold them responsible.' The family, he said, still has no answers but believes the Iranian government does. 'We fully believe that they know exactly where his remains would be and what exactly happened to him,' he said. 'We want justice for him. We want to get answers. We have no answers and the Iranian government has lied about it for 18 years.' On Thursday, an account on the social media platform X created to draw attention to Levinson's case posted a message that said: 'Our dad, Bob Levinson, was left behind too many times. This may be the last chance to get answers. Any deal with Iran must finally bring him home to rest on US soil.'
