Latest news with #SamuelA.Alito
Los Angeles Times
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Parents may pull their children from classes that offend their religion, Supreme Court rules
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Friday that parents have a right to opt their schoolchildren out of classes and lessons that offend their religious beliefs. The 6-3 ruling will have an impact nationwide because it empowers parents who object to books or lessons at school. 'A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,' said Justice Samuel A. Alito, speaking for the conservative majority. Parents in Montgomery County, Md., sued over new LGBTQ+ storybooks that were used in kindergarten and elementary school classes. This clash between progressive educators and religiously conservative parents moved quickly to the Supreme Court after judges refused to intervene. Alito said the parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction which would require the schools to 'notify them in advance' when one of the disputed storybooks would be used in their child's class. In ruling for the parents, the court did not say parents have right to change the lessons and books that were used at school. They could, however, choose to have their children temporarily removed from those classes. The court's three liberals dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said 'today's ruling ushers in ...new reality. Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to subtle themes contrary to the religious principles that parents wish to instill in their children. 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. The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools.' Nearly every state, including Maryland and California, has a law that allows parents to opt out their children from sex education classes. But Montgomery County officials said this state rule applied to older students and to sex education, but not to reading lessons for elementary children. When the new LGBTQ+ storybooks were introduced in the fall of 2022, parents were told their young children could be removed from those lessons. But when 'unsustainably high numbers' of children were absent, the school board revoked the opt-out rule. In reaction, a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents filed a suit in federal court, seeking an order that would allow their children to be removed from class during the reading lessons. A federal judge and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to intervene. Those judges said the 'free exercise' of religion under the 1st Amendment protects people from being forced to change their conduct or their beliefs but it does not shield people from views they oppose. Lawyers for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed to the Supreme Court. They said the school board had 'mandated new 'inclusive' storybooks that celebrate gender transitions, explore Pride parades, and introduce same-sex romance between young children.' At first, parents had been promised they would be notified and could opt their children out when the storybooks were read, they said. But that promise was revoked. 'If parents did not like what was taught to their elementary school kids, their only choice was to send them to private school or to home school,' they said.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court turns away a 2nd Amendment challenge to blue-state bans on assault weapons
A closely divided Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a 2nd Amendment challenge to the bans on semi-automatic rifles in Maryland, California and eight other blue states. Gun rights advocates say these AR-15s are owned by millions of Americans, and they argue the 2nd Amendment protects weapons that are "in common use by law-abiding citizens." But they fell one vote short of winning a hearing on the question before the Supreme Court. Three conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch — voted to hear the 2nd Amendment challenge. But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh refused for now to cast the key fourth vote. He called the lower court ruling upholding Maryland's ban "questionable," but agreed with the majority in turning down the appeal for now. "In my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two," Kavanaugh said. The closely watched appeal had been pending since December, and the outcome suggests that the majority, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, is not ready to strike down state laws that restrict semi-automatic guns. Monday's no-comment orders let stands law in Maryland and Rhode Island that forbid the sale or possession of "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines. California adopted the nation's first ban on assault weapons in 1989. Since then, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington have enacted similar laws, all of which would have been struck down if Maryland's law were ruled unconstitutional. Lawmakers in California and nine other Democratic-led states say these rapid-fire weapons are especially dangerous and not needed for self-defense. Read more: Supreme Court rejects gun rights for people accused of domestic violence Maryland said its ban applies to "certain highly dangerous, military-style assault weapons of the sort used in a series of highly publicized mass shootings." The case tested the reach of the 2nd Amendment and its "right to keep and bear arms." For more than a decade, the justices have turned away gun-rights appeals that challenged local or state bans on assault weapons. In 2008, the court ruled for the first time that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to self-defense, but its constitutional rulings since then have been modest in their impact. The justices struck down city ordinances in Washington and Chicago laws that prohibited private possession of handguns, and they ruled states may not deny law-abiding citizens a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In opinion polls, most Americans are opposed to a ban on handgun possession but they support a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles. Maryland passed its ban on "assault weapons" after the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, where 20 children and six school employees were killed. The law was upheld last year in an opinion written by a prominent conservative judge. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee who was a finalist for a Supreme Court nomination in 2005, said the AR-15, AK-47 and similar rapid-fire rifles are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. "They are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense," he wrote in a 9-5 decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. "We decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes." Read more: Gun control laws in California may be challenged as Supreme Court expands the 2nd Amendment The dissenters said the 2nd Amendment protects the right to the "arms" that are in common use. "Today, the AR-15 and its variants are one of the most popular and widely owned firearms in the Nation," wrote Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee. "As of 2021, there are at least 28 million AR-style semiautomatic rifles in circulation. For context, this means that there are more AR-style rifles in the civilian market than there are Ford F-Series pickup trucks on the road — the most popular truck in America." Three years ago, the court said in an opinion by Thomas that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted based on the nation's history and tradition of gun regulations. However, the two sides in the Maryland case differed on what to glean from that history. Gun-rights advocates said there was no early history of laws banning common firearms. But some judges and state lawyers said the history shows that when new dangers arose—including stored gun powder, dynamite and machine guns—new restrictions were written into law. If so, that would support new laws adopted in response to the danger posed by rapid-fire weapons. The justices denied review in the case of Snope vs. Brown in the fall. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
02-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court turns away a 2nd Amendment challenge to blue-state bans on assault weapons
WASHINGTON — A closely divided Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a 2nd Amendment challenge to the bans on semi-automatic rifles in Maryland, California and eight other blue states. Gun rights advocates say these AR-15s are owned by millions of Americans, and they argue the 2nd Amendment protects weapons that are 'in common use by law-abiding citizens.' But they fell one vote short of winning a hearing on the question before the Supreme Court. Three conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch — voted to hear the 2nd Amendment challenge. But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh refused for now to cast the key fourth vote. He called the lower court ruling upholding Maryland's ban 'questionable,' but agreed with the majority in turning down the appeal for now. 'In my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two,' Kavanaugh said. The closely watched appeal had been pending since December, and the outcome suggests that the majority, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, is not ready to strike down state laws that restrict semi-automatic guns. Monday's no-comment orders let stands law in Maryland and Rhode Island that forbid the sale or possession of 'assault weapons' and large-capacity magazines. California adopted the nation's first ban on assault weapons in 1989. Since then, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington have enacted similar laws, all of which would have been struck down if Maryland's law were ruled unconstitutional. Lawmakers in California and nine other Democratic-led states say these rapid-fire weapons are especially dangerous and not needed for self-defense. Maryland said its ban applies to 'certain highly dangerous, military-style assault weapons of the sort used in a series of highly publicized mass shootings.' The case tested the reach of the 2nd Amendment and its 'right to keep and bear arms.' For more than a decade, the justices have turned away gun-rights appeals that challenged local or state bans on assault weapons. In 2008, the court ruled for the first time that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to self-defense, but its constitutional rulings since then have been modest in their impact. The justices struck down city ordinances in Washington and Chicago laws that prohibited private possession of handguns, and they ruled states may not deny law-abiding citizens a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In opinion polls, most Americans are opposed to a ban on handgun possession but they support a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles. Maryland passed its ban on 'assault weapons' after the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, where 20 children and six school employees were killed. The law was upheld last year in an opinion written by a prominent conservative judge. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee who was a finalist for a Supreme Court nomination in 2005, said the AR-15, AK-47 and similar rapid-fire rifles are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. 'They are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,' he wrote in a 9-5 decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. 'We decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes.' The dissenters said the 2nd Amendment protects the right to the 'arms' that are in common use. 'Today, the AR-15 and its variants are one of the most popular and widely owned firearms in the Nation,' wrote Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee. 'As of 2021, there are at least 28 million AR-style semiautomatic rifles in circulation. For context, this means that there are more AR-style rifles in the civilian market than there are Ford F-Series pickup trucks on the road — the most popular truck in America.' Three years ago, the court said in an opinion by Thomas that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted based on the nation's history and tradition of gun regulations. However, the two sides in the Maryland case differed on what to glean from that history. Gun-rights advocates said there was no early history of laws banning common firearms. But some judges and state lawyers said the history shows that when new dangers arose—including stored gun powder, dynamite and machine guns—new restrictions were written into law. If so, that would support new laws adopted in response to the danger posed by rapid-fire weapons. The justices denied review in the case of Snope vs. Brown in the fall.
