Latest news with #MontgomeryCountyBoardofEducation
NBC News
27-06-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court says parents can opt kids out of LGBTQ books in elementary schools
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents who objected to LGBTQ-themed books that a Maryland county approved for use in elementary school classrooms. In a 6-3 vote, the court backed the parents' claim that the Montgomery County Board of Education's decision not to allow an opt-out option for their children violated their religious rights.
Politico
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Senate slated to take first vote on megabill Saturday
The Supreme Court has sided with a group of parents demanding that their public schools be required to provide notices to opt their children out of certain storybook readings that conflict with their religious beliefs. Friday's 6-3 ruling, split along ideological lines, found that Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools violated parents' First Amendment rights to religious exercise by not giving them advanced notice or an opportunity to opt their children out of certain lessons. The school board had initially allowed parents to opt out of lessons, but the board's policy reversal in the 2023-2024 school year sparked a legal challenge. The school district said it had withdrawn its opt-out notice policy because it became unmanageable and resulted in reports of high absenteeism to the school board. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and the court's three liberal justices dissented. Alito said the school board's introduction of LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks and decision to end its opt-out policy 'substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners' children.' 'The books are unmistakably normative,' he wrote. 'They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' The decision comes after a group of Muslim, Christian and Jewish parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Education, which oversees Maryland's largest school district, after the board refused to allow parents to pull their elementary school children from lessons with LGBTQ+ themes. Arguments in the case against the Maryland school board focused on whether requiring students to participate in lessons including LGBTQ+ themes could constitute coercion. Justices ruled that the parents suing were entitled to a preliminary injunction while the case is ongoing because they were likely to succeed in their challenge to the board's policies. The high court's conservative majority said the parents hold 'sincere views on sexuality and gender which they wish to pass on to their children.' The court also rejected the school board's argument that the lessons were used only as 'exposure to objectionable ideas' because the books 'unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.' Alito made an example of books about same-sex marriage, saying the storybooks are designed to present a viewpoint to 'young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher's instruction.' He argued that the parents are not seeking 'the right to micromanage the public school curriculum' but instead to opt out of particular lessons 'that burdens their well-established right 'to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children.'' 'Many Americans, like the parents in this case, believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly,' he added. 'The storybooks, however, suggest that it is hurtful, and perhaps even hateful, to hold the view that gender is inextricably bound with biological sex.' He included photos from the book 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' which celebrates a relationship between two men; 'Born Ready,' which highlights a transgender boy's journey; and several other stories on LGBTQ issues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sparred with Alito over the storybooks during oral arguments in the case, wrote the dissent. She said the ruling 'threatens the very essence of public education' and 'constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.' 'The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools,' she wrote. 'Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.'
Politico
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Supreme Court OKs opt-out for LGBTQ+ materials in school
The Supreme Court has sided with a group of parents demanding that their public schools be required to provide notices to opt their children out of certain storybook readings that conflict with their religious beliefs. Friday's 6-3 ruling, split along ideological lines, found that Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools violated parents' First Amendment rights to religious exercise by not giving them advanced notice or an opportunity to opt their children out of certain lessons. The school board had initially allowed parents to opt out of lessons, but the board's policy reversal in the 2023-2024 school year sparked a legal challenge. The school district said it had withdrawn its opt-out notice policy because it became unmanageable and resulted in reports of high absenteeism to the school board. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and the court's three liberal justices dissented. Alito said the school board's introduction of LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks and decision to end its opt-out policy 'substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners' children.' 'The books are unmistakably normative,' he wrote. 'They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' The decision comes after a group of Muslim, Christian and Jewish parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Education, which oversees Maryland's largest school district, after the board refused to allow parents to pull their elementary school children from lessons with LGBTQ+ themes. Arguments in the case against the Maryland school board focused on whether requiring students to participate in lessons including LGBTQ+ themes could constitute coercion. Justices ruled that the parents suing were entitled to a preliminary injunction while the case is ongoing because they were likely to succeed in their challenge to the board's policies. The high court's conservative majority said the parents hold 'sincere views on sexuality and gender which they wish to pass on to their children.' The court also rejected the school board's argument that the lessons were used only as 'exposure to objectionable ideas' because the books 'unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.' Alito made an example of books about same-sex marriage, saying the storybooks are designed to present a viewpoint to 'young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher's instruction.' He argued that the parents are not seeking 'the right to micromanage the public school curriculum' but instead to opt out of particular lessons 'that burdens their well-established right 'to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children.'' 'Many Americans, like the parents in this case, believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly,' he added. 'The storybooks, however, suggest that it is hurtful, and perhaps even hateful, to hold the view that gender is inextricably bound with biological sex.' He included photos from the book 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' which celebrates a relationship between two men; 'Born Ready,' which highlights a transgender boy's journey; and several other stories on LGBTQ issues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sparred with Alito over the storybooks during oral arguments in the case, wrote the dissent. She said the ruling 'threatens the very essence of public education' and 'constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.' 'The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools,' she wrote. 'Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.'
Politico
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Donald Trump calls Supreme Court birthright citizenship decision 'amazing'
The Supreme Court has sided with a group of parents demanding that their public schools be required to provide notices to opt their children out of certain storybook readings that conflict with their religious beliefs. Friday's 6-3 ruling, split along ideological lines, found that Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools violated parents' First Amendment rights to religious exercise by not giving them advanced notice or an opportunity to opt their children out of certain lessons. The school board had initially allowed parents to opt out of lessons, but the board's policy reversal in the 2023-2024 school year sparked a legal challenge. The school district said it had withdrawn its opt-out notice policy because it became unmanageable and resulted in reports of high absenteeism to the school board. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and the court's three liberal justices dissented. Alito said the school board's introduction of LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks and decision to end its opt-out policy 'substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners' children.' 'The books are unmistakably normative,' he wrote. 'They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' The decision comes after a group of Muslim, Christian and Jewish parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Education, which oversees Maryland's largest school district, after the board refused to allow parents to pull their elementary school children from lessons with LGBTQ+ themes. Arguments in the case against the Maryland school board focused on whether requiring students to participate in lessons including LGBTQ+ themes could constitute coercion. Justices ruled that the parents suing were entitled to a preliminary injunction while the case is ongoing because they were likely to succeed in their challenge to the board's policies. The high court's conservative majority said the parents hold 'sincere views on sexuality and gender which they wish to pass on to their children.' The court also rejected the school board's argument that the lessons were used only as 'exposure to objectionable ideas' because the books 'unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.' Alito made an example of books about same-sex marriage, saying the storybooks are designed to present a viewpoint to 'young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher's instruction.' He argued that the parents are not seeking 'the right to micromanage the public school curriculum' but instead to opt out of particular lessons 'that burdens their well-established right 'to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children.'' 'Many Americans, like the parents in this case, believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly,' he added. 'The storybooks, however, suggest that it is hurtful, and perhaps even hateful, to hold the view that gender is inextricably bound with biological sex.' He included photos from the book 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' which celebrates a relationship between two men; 'Born Ready,' which highlights a transgender boy's journey; and several other stories on LGBTQ issues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sparred with Alito over the storybooks during oral arguments in the case, wrote the dissent. She said the ruling 'threatens the very essence of public education' and 'constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.' 'The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools,' she wrote. 'Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.'
NBC News
27-06-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court backs parents seeking to opt their kids out of LGBTQ books in elementary schools
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday bolstered religious rights as it ruled in favor of parents who objected to LGBTQ-themed books that a Maryland county approved for use in elementary school classrooms. The court on a 6-3 vote backed the parents' claim that the Montgomery County Board of Education's decision not to allow an opt-out for their children violated their religious rights under the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects religious expression. "The board's introduction of the 'LGBTQ+ inclusive' storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that is often receptive to religious claims. The liberal justices dissented. The dispute arose in 2022 when the school board in the diverse county just outside Washington revised its English language arts curriculum. The board determined that it wanted more storybooks to feature LGBTQ elements to better reflect some of the families who live in the area. Approved books include 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' which features a gay character who is getting married, and 'Born Ready,' about a transgender child who wants to identify as a boy. The school board said that although the books are in classrooms and available for children to pick up, teachers are not required to use them in class. Initially the school board indicated that parents would be able to opt their children out of exposure to the books, but it quickly changed course, suggesting that would be too difficult to implement. Plaintiffs include Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, a Muslim couple who have a son in elementary school. Members of the Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox churches also sued, as did a parent group called Kids First that has members of various faiths. They said they had a right to protect their children from being taught content that conflicts with their religious beliefs by expressing support for same-sex relationships and transgender rights. The Trump administration backed the challengers. A federal judge and the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the school board. The Supreme Court has in the past backed religious rights in cases involving conflicting arguments made by LGBTQ rights advocates. In one recent ruling, the court in 2023 ruled in favor of a Christian web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings.
