Court sides with Maryland parents over LGBTQ+ storybooks
The Supreme Court has ruled that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks.
|
"Victory for parents’ right to guide their children’s education!" Eric Baxter, senior counsel |
The justices 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 decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end.
|
"It's really a ruling for parents. They lost control of the schools. They lost control of their child. This is a tremendous victory for parents." President Donald Trump |
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 case is Mahmoud v. Taylor.
Texas law on age verification upheld
The High Court has upheld a Texas law that protects children under 18 from seeing online pornography.
Nearly half all states have passed similar age verification laws as smartphones and other devices make it easier to access online porn, including hardcore obscene material.
|
"Rather than forcing states to allow kids to be exposed to pornography to accommodate adults who don’t want to have to bother with age-verification, [Supreme Court] underscored states’ compelling interest in protecting minors." Carrie Severino, president |
The ruling comes after an adult-entertainment industry trade group called the Free Speech Coalition challenged the Texas law.
The group said the law puts an unfair free-speech burden on adults by requiring them to submit personal information that could be vulnerable to hacking or tracking. It agreed, though, that children under 18 shouldn’t be seeing porn.
|
"This is a major victory for children, parents, and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography." Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton |
Texas argues that technology has improved significantly in the last 20 years, allowing online platforms to easily check users’ ages with a quick picture. Those requirements are more like ID checks at brick-and-mortar adult stores that were upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, the state said.
The case is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions
A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship.
|
"The Supreme Court slapping down activist Judges to limit these crazy injunctions is one of the biggest wins President Trump has had since he took office." Robby Starbuck |
The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda.
But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally. (Read "Did SCOTUS purposely 'punt' on birthright citizenship?")
“Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on the social platform X shortly after the ruling came down.
The case is Trump v. CASA.
Court preserves key part of Obamacare coverage requirements
The Supreme Court preserved a key part of the Affordable Care Act’s preventive health care coverage requirements on Friday, rejecting a challenge from Christian employers to the provision that affects some 150 million Americans.
The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama’s signature law, often referred to as Obamacare.
The plaintiffs said the process is unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts tasked with recommending which services are covered is not Senate approved.
President Donald Trump's administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been a critic of his Democratic predecessor's law. The Justice Department said board members don’t need Senate approval because they can be removed by the Health and Human Services secretary.
The case is Kennedy v. Braidwood Management.
Subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the fee that is added to phone bills to provide billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas.
The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years.
At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans.
The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers.
A Virginia-based conservative advocacy group, Consumers' Research, had challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumers' Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation’s most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional.
The case is Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research.
