The lack of an “opt-out,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court, “places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion.”
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks.
What You Need To Know
A lawyer says the Supreme Court’s ruling that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks is a historic victory for parental rights
Lawyer Eric Baxter say kids “shouldn’t be forced into conversations” about drag queens or gender transitions without their parents’ permission
The high court ruled Friday the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material
The writers’ group PEN America says what the objecting parents want amounts to “a constitutionally suspect book ban”
With the six conservative justices in the majority, the court reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material.
The lack of an “opt-out,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court, “places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that exposure to different views in a multicultural society is a critical feature of public schools. “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,” Sotomayor wrote. “Today’s ruling ushers in that new reality.”
The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them.
The school district introduced the storybooks, including “Prince & Knight” and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district’s diversity. In “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” a niece worries that her uncle won’t have as much time for her after he gets married to another man.
The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years, and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries.
Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a “hoax” and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump’s predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat.
The writers’ group PEN America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted “a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.” PEN America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year.
“By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools,” said Elly Brinkley, a lawyer for the group’s U.S. Free Expression Programs. “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.”
Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the Maryland parents at the Supreme Court, said the decision was 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.
Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit.
At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the “opt outs” had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said.
The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn’t send their children to public schools.
More at:
Kazakhstan bans face coverings in public places
Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev signed a law on Monday prohibiting individuals from wearing clothing in public places that covers their faces, joining a trend in several Central Asian countries to restrict forms of Islamic dress.
The text of the law says clothing that “interferes with facial recognition” will be banned in public, with exemptions for medical purposes, in adverse weather conditions and at sporting and cultural events.
The legislation, one in a series of wider amendments signed into law on Monday, does not explicitly mention religion or types of religious dress.
Tokayev has previously praised the legislation as an opportunity to celebrate ethnic identity in Kazakhstan, a majority-Muslim country and former Soviet republic.
“Rather than wearing face-concealing black robes, it’s much better to wear clothes in the national style,” he was quoted by Kazakh media as saying earlier this year.
“Our national clothes vividly emphasise our ethnic identity, so we need to popularise them comprehensively.”
Other Central Asian countries have introduced similar laws in recent years.
Police in Kyrgyzstan have conducted street patrols to enforce their ban on the Islamic niqab face veil, according to local media reports. In Uzbekistan, violating the niqab statute carries a fine of over $250. Tajik President Emomali Rakhmon signed a ban on wearing clothing in public that is “alien to national culture.”
More at:
More Stories
SCOTUS Rules 5-4 to Permit Counting of Mail-In Ballots that Arrive After Election Day
Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to End Temporary Protected Status for Hundreds of Thousands of Haitians and Syrians
Biden appointed Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump Administration use of database of Social Security numbers, citizenship status