Latest news with #LoyolaLawSchool
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.
2 days ago
- Politics
Trump administration sues all 15 Maryland federal judges over order blocking removal of immigrants
The Trump administration on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against all 15 federal judges in Maryland over an order blocking the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals, ratcheting up a fight with the federal judiciary over President Donald Trump's executive powers. The remarkable action lays bare the administration's determination to exert its will over immigration enforcement as well as a growing exasperation with federal judges who have time and again turned aside executive branch actions they see as lawless and without legal merit. 'It's extraordinary," Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said of the Justice Department's lawsuit. 'And it's escalating DOJ's effort to challenge federal judges.' At issue is an order signed by Chief Judge George L. Russell III and filed in May blocking the administration from immediately removing from the U.S. any immigrants who file paperwork with the Maryland district court seeking a review of their detention. The order blocks the removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after the habeas corpus petition is filed. The administration says the automatic pause on removals violates a Supreme Court ruling and impedes the president's authority to enforce immigration laws. The Republican administration has been locked for weeks in a growing showdown with the federal judiciary amid a barrage of legal challenges to the president's efforts to carry out key priorities around immigration and other matters. The Justice Department has grown increasingly frustrated by rulings blocking the president's agenda, accusing judges of improperly impeding the president's powers. "President Trump's executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda,' Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement Wednesday. 'The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand.' A spokesman for the Maryland district court declined to comment. Trump has railed against unfavorable judicial rulings, and in one case called for the impeachment of a federal judge in Washington who ordered planeloads of deported immigrants to be turned around. That led to an extraordinary statement from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who said 'impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.' Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who has called the administration's deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador illegal. Attorneys for Abrego Garcia have asked Xinis to impose fines against the administration for contempt, arguing that it ignored court orders for weeks to return him to the U.S. The order signed by Russell says it aims to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government 'fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense.' In an amended order, Russell said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that "resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.' The Trump administration has asked the Maryland judges to recuse themselves from the case. It wants a clerk to have a federal judge from another state hear it. James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, described the lawsuit as further part of the erosion of legal norms by the administration. Normally when parties are on the losing side of an injunction, they appeal the order — not sue the court or judges, he said. On one hand, he said, the Justice Department has a point that injunctions should be considered extraordinary relief; it's unusual for them to be granted automatically in an entire class of cases. But, he added, it's the administration's own actions in repeatedly moving detainees to prevent them from obtaining writs of habeas corpus that prompted the court to issue the order. 'The judges here didn't ask to be put in this unenviable position,' Sample said. 'Faced with imperfect options, they have made an entirely reasonable, cautious choice to modestly check an executive branch that is determined to circumvent any semblance of impartial process.'
Bloomberg
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Newsom Sues Trump Over National Guard Deployment
Jessica Levinson, director of the Public Service Institute at Layola Law School, breaks down the 'broad' presidential authority used to deploy the national guard to Los Angeles protests and the argument California Governor Gavin Newsom may use to fight the move. (Source: Bloomberg)
