A split US Oberster Court of Justice has sat on the side of religious parents who want to pull their children out of the classroom when a public school lesson uses LGBTQ storybooks.
The 6: 3 decision on Friday comes in a case of parents in Maryland, since certain books are increasingly banned by public schools and libraries.
In the majority opinion of Samuel Alito together with the other conservatives of the court, he wrote that the lack of an “opt-out” for parents laid an unconstitutional burden on their rights to freedom of religion.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in defendations for the three liberal judges that public schools expose children to different views in a multicultural society.
“This experience is crucial for the bourgeois vitality of our nation,” she wrote. “Nevertheless, it will be a mere memory if children have to be isolated from exposure to ideas and concepts that are conflicting with their parents’ religious beliefs.”
Here is what you need to know about the case and its possible effects:
What happens next
In this case, the decision was not a final decision. It turned decisions under the school system of Montgomery County, which in 2022, as part of the efforts to better reflect the diversity of the district, reverse reversing on the side of the Montgomery County school system.
The school district initially allowed the parents to decide their children for religious and other reasons for the lessons, but the district later turned the course and said it had become annoying. The move led to protests and finally to a lawsuit.
Now the case is failing to re -evaluate it under the up-to-date guidance of the Supreme Court. But the judges emphasized that the parents will end up win.
The court decided that guidelines such as the guidelines of the strictest review that are in question in this case are exposed to the failure.
The decision could have national effects on public education
Jessica Levinson, professor at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said that the court’s judgment could inspire similar complaints in other states.
“I think every school district that reads similar books for his children is now subject to parents who do not want their children to hear these books because they significantly impair their religious beliefs,” she said.
It remains to be seen whether the door could open the door for broader legal challenges.
Levinson said that the emphasis on the contents of the books in the center of the case, including “Uncle Bobby Wedding”, a story about two men who marry the effects that emphasize the majority opinion.
“The question that people will ask,” said Levinson, “if this could now say this to the parents:” We do not want our children to learn about certain aspects of American history. “”
LGBTQ -Rechtsanwälte Slam Court Decision
Adam Zimmerman, who has two children in the school in Montgomery County, Maryland, called the ruler abruptly.
“We have to call what is disguised as a religious belief and values, and reveal it for the intolerance it really is,” he said.
Zimmerman has been living in Montgomery County for 16 years and wanted to largely educate his son and daughter because of the diversity of the school district. It was significant to him that his children are exposed to people from all areas of life.
“It’s a nice thing and this decision only spits on this diversity,” he said.
Other right -wing groups described the court’s decision as harmful and risky.
“Regardless of what the Supreme Court said and for which extremist groups are committed to book bans and other censorship, LGBTQIA+ people from our communities will not extinguish,” said Fatima Goss Graves, CEO and President of the National Women’s Law Center.
Conservative supporters say that the case is parental rights and religious freedom
The Republican US Senator Bill Cassidy from Louisiana, who was part of an Amicus order that was submitted in the case to support the parents of Maryland, described the judgment as “victory for families”.
“The students should not be forced to learn something about gender and sexuality that violates the religious beliefs of their family,” he said.
The lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the parents at the Supreme Court, also described the decision as a “historical victory for parental rights”.
“Children should not be forced to talk about Drag Queens, Pride parades or gender transitions without their parents’ permission,” said Baxter.
Other opponents say that the judgment will have a “broad, frightening effect”
Pen America, a group that campaigned for the free expression, said that the court’s decision could open the door to censorship and discrimination in classrooms.
“In practice, opt -outs for religious objections will relax what is taught in schools and initiate closer orthodoxy in order to insult the fear of insulting an ideology or sensitivity,” said Elly Brinkley, a lawyer from Pen America.
In a joint explanation on Friday, some authors and illustrators of the books in question described the decision as a threat to the freedom of speech of the first changes and the diversity in schools.
“Treat children’s books about LGBTQ+ parectors differently than similar books about non -LGBTQ+ farths are discriminatory and harmful,” the explanation says.
