Maryland parents challenge the inclusion of LGBTQ books in schools
SCOTUS NEWS
The Supreme Court is set to decide whether a Maryland group of parents can opt for their children to be exempted form LGBTQ-themed stories. The justices granted Mahmoud, v. Taylor on Friday afternoon. A coalition of parents in Montgomery County, Md. argued that forcing their children to take part in instruction that violates religious beliefs violates the First Amendment right of their children to freely practice their religion. The announcement comes just six weeks after the Justices heard oral arguments on a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care for minors. In that case, the parents of three transgender teenagers and the teens themselves argued that the ban violated the Constitution’s guarantee for equal protection. The court declined to answer their question about whether the law violates parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children. Pride Puppy is a book for young children that tells the tale of a lost puppy during an LGBTQ Pride Parade. The lower courts refused to issue an order requiring the county to notify parents when storybooks will be used and allow them to opt out of the instruction. The U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, explained that the parents did not prove that the storybooks forced them to violate their religious beliefs. In A.J.T. The U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, ruled that children must prove that school officials acted in “bad faith or grossly misjudgment.” However, the plaintiff – a teenager with severe epilepsy – argues that a more lenient standard should be applied. If a litigant files an appeal notice after the deadline has passed, is it necessary to file another notice when the appeal period is reopened. In Soto v. United States the justices agreed that they would decide a technical issue related to compensation for combat vets.
And in Bowe v. United States, the justices will consider procedural questions arising from the application of the federal laws governing post-conviction relief for federal prisoners.
The justices did not act on some of the other high-profile cases that they considered at Friday’s conference, including the challenge to Maryland’s ban on assault rifles and a group of cases challenging a law enacted to improve safety in the horse-racing industry. The justices may act on these cases as early as Tuesday morning at 9:30am.
