Category
Listen on Spotify Apple Music Amazon Music – Zurückdrehen der Ampel-Politik: Wie die Union die jetzige Klima-Außenpolitik neu aufstellen und damit nicht nur das Wirtschaftsministerium…
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/wPTkS_zTHEF6jRKUT5Ge8Xn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 22" title="Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 22"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Banner190626-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 22" title="Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 22" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-22%2F&linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2022" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-22%2F&linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2022" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-22%2F&linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2022" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-22%2F&linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2022" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-22%2F&linkname=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2022" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fannouncement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-22%2F&title=Announcement%20of%20opinions%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%2022" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-22/" data-a2a-title="Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 22">Share</a></p><p>On Tuesday, April 22, we will be live blogging as the court releases opinions in one or more argued cases from the current term.</p> <p>Click <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/">here</a> for a list of FAQs about opinion announcements.</p> <p><span id="more-319866"></span></p> <div class="arena-chat" data-publisher="scotusblog" data-chatroom="clnoPYD" data-position="in-page"> </div> <p> </p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-april-22/">Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 22</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/t2X0hf9Jxeznlh3HeCdxXXn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force" title="Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-12-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force" title="Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-12-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-12-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-12-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-12-1000x1000.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fcourt-appears-to-back-legality-of-hhs-preventative-care-task-force%2F&linkname=Court%20appears%20to%20back%20legality%20of%20HHS%20preventative%20care%20task%20force" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fcourt-appears-to-back-legality-of-hhs-preventative-care-task-force%2F&linkname=Court%20appears%20to%20back%20legality%20of%20HHS%20preventative%20care%20task%20force" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fcourt-appears-to-back-legality-of-hhs-preventative-care-task-force%2F&linkname=Court%20appears%20to%20back%20legality%20of%20HHS%20preventative%20care%20task%20force" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fcourt-appears-to-back-legality-of-hhs-preventative-care-task-force%2F&linkname=Court%20appears%20to%20back%20legality%20of%20HHS%20preventative%20care%20task%20force" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fcourt-appears-to-back-legality-of-hhs-preventative-care-task-force%2F&linkname=Court%20appears%20to%20back%20legality%20of%20HHS%20preventative%20care%20task%20force" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fcourt-appears-to-back-legality-of-hhs-preventative-care-task-force%2F&title=Court%20appears%20to%20back%20legality%20of%20HHS%20preventative%20care%20task%20force" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/court-appears-to-back-legality-of-hhs-preventative-care-task-force/" data-a2a-title="Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court on Monday appeared to side with the federal government in a dispute over the constitutionality of the structure of a task force within the Department of Health and Human Services. The case came to court as a dispute over a 2019 decision by the group, known as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, to recommend PrEP, the HIV-preventative medications, for coverage as a “preventative health service” at no cost to patients. The challengers in the case contend that the group’s recommendations are invalid because the members of the task force were not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but most of the justices seemed skeptical of that argument.</p> <p>The Affordable Care Act of 2010 requires private health insurers to cover “preventive health services” at no additional cost to patients. But the law does not indicate what those services are. Instead, the law directs the task force to make that determination, and it requires its recommendations to be “independent, and to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure.”</p> <p>The dispute before the court on Monday began in 2020, when four individuals and two small businesses went to federal court in Texas to challenge the requirement that insurers cover pre-exposure prophylaxis medicines, known as PrEP, which are highly effective at preventing HIV. The task force had recommended in June 2019 that PrEP be included as a mandatory preventive-care service.<span id="more-319883"></span></p> <p>The plaintiffs object to the requirement to provide PrEP on religious grounds, because they believe that it will encourage same-sex relationships and intravenous drug use. They contend that the structure of the task force violates the Constitution’s appointments clause, which requires “principal officers” of the United States to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.</p> <p>U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed with the plaintiffs and ruled that all preventive-care requirements imposed by the task force since the ACA went into effect were invalid. O’Connor also barred the government from enforcing preventive-services requirements going forward.</p> <p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld O’Connor’s conclusion that the task force’s structure violates the appointments clause. But it narrowed the remedy for that violation, holding only that the government was barred from enforcing the preventive-services requirements against the plaintiffs in this case.</p> <p>Monday morning’s argument was largely a constitutional law debate, with only Justice Amy Coney Barrett referring (very briefly) to the medicine that prompted the plaintiffs in this case to bring their lawsuit.</p> <p>Representing the Trump administration, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan told the justices that task force members are “inferior officers” who do not need to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The HHS secretary provides “ample” supervision of the task force, Mooppan argued: He can remove them at any time, which is a “powerful tool” to control them, and he can review their recommendations and prevent them from taking effect. He can even, Mooppan added, require the task force to obtain preapproval “before they issue any recommendation at all.” Congress, Mooppan concluded a few minutes later, wanted the benefits that come with an expert body like the task force, but it also wanted that body to be politically accountable.</p> <p>Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed Mooppan on whether the HHS secretary actually can remove members of the task force at any time, observing that the ability to do so rests on the government’s assumption that the HHS secretary has the power to appoint the members of the task force. The court of appeals didn’t decide this issue, Gorsuch noted, but in his view there “seems to be some reason to question” whether he does, and it is a “pretty critical premise of” the government’s argument. Should the Supreme Court, Gorsuch asked, send the case back to the lower court for it to make that ruling in the first place?</p> <p>Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the government’s interpretation of the statute’s requirement that the task force’s recommendations be “independent” was “incredibly strained.” If task force members can be removed for any reason, Alito told Mooppan, they are not “independent.”</p> <p>Representing the plaintiffs, Jonathan Mitchell told the justices that the task force members can’t be “inferior officers” because “their preventive care coverage mandates are neither directed nor supervised by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or by anyone else who has been appointed as a principal officer.” The statutory provisions governing the task force, Mitchell said, “cannot coexist with a regime” in which the HHS secretary can override recommendations or prevent them from having binding effect.</p> <p>But several of the justices, both conservative and liberal, appeared skeptical that the task force members were instead “principal officers.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, told Mitchell that the Supreme Court does not normally interpret laws to create independent agencies without stronger language than the text at issue here. In such cases, Kavanaugh noted, the law usually specifically requires agency officials to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and indicates that they can only be removed for a good reason.</p> <p>Justice Elena Kagan echoed Kavanaugh’s concern, telling Mitchell that “we don’t go around creating independent agencies. More often,” she said, “we’re destroying independent agencies.”</p> <p>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson posited that the requirement that the HHS secretary establish a minimum interval before the task force’s recommendations can go into effect provides the kind of control over task force members to make them “inferior” officers.</p> <p>And Barrett observed that the Supreme Court tries to interpret federal laws to avoid constitutional questions whenever possible. In light of that principle, she asked Mitchell, why wouldn’t the justices construe the ACA’s reference to the task force’s “independence” more narrowly – that is, as Kagan put it a few minutes later, approaching their job with a “spirit of independence” but not necessarily requiring them to be completely free of any influence?</p> <p>Alito asked Mitchell what would happen if the court were to determine that the task force members were “inferior” officers.</p> <p>Mitchell urged the justices to send the case back to the lower court for it to determine whether Congress had given the HHS secretary the power to appoint members of the task force in the first place. “I don’t think it’s appropriate,” Mitchell stressed, “for the Court to decide that issue based on how cursory the briefing is.”</p> <p>Alito followed up, asking what would happen if either the 5th Circuit or the Supreme Court were to conclude that the HHS secretary does have that authority.</p> <p>Going forward, Mitchell acknowledged, “there should be no remedy.” But, he contended, there should be a retroactive remedy “that restrains the Secretary from enforcing any of the Task Force coverage recommendations that issued between March of 2010,” when then-President Barack Obama signed the ACA into law, “and June of 2023,” when then-HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra officially appointed members of the task force.</p> <p>In closing, Mooppan countered that “the answer” to the question whether the HHS secretary has the power to make appointments to the task force “is quite clear,” and “it would be better to just resolve it now.” The only real question, Mooppan suggested, is whether the HHS secretary or the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has that power. But under the Reorganization Act, Mooppan emphasized, “all of the director’s powers are the secretary’s powers.” And under a separate law, he continued, the HHS secretary “exercises all the powers of that agency through the director. So we think that is pretty clear evidence that it is vested by law in the secretary.”</p> <p>Mooppan echoed Mitchell’s views on the remedy if the court concludes that the task force members are inferior officers. Going forward, he agreed, there is no need for a remedy, “and retrospectively there will need to be a remand to figure out whether the old recommendations either have to be enjoined or can be ratified by the Task Force.”</p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/21/court-appears-to-back-legality-of-hhs-preventative-care-task-force/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>.</em></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/court-appears-to-back-legality-of-hhs-preventative-care-task-force/">Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/VOh6nzRZB5iyMp3GR3W56Xn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS" title="Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/IMG_8159-3-150x150.jpeg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS" title="Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/IMG_8159-3-150x150.jpeg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/IMG_8159-3-570x570.jpeg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/IMG_8159-3-500x500.jpeg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/IMG_8159-3-1000x1000.jpeg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fjustices-take-up-texas-womans-claim-against-usps%2F&linkname=Justices%20take%20up%20Texas%20woman%E2%80%99s%20claim%20against%20USPS" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fjustices-take-up-texas-womans-claim-against-usps%2F&linkname=Justices%20take%20up%20Texas%20woman%E2%80%99s%20claim%20against%20USPS" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fjustices-take-up-texas-womans-claim-against-usps%2F&linkname=Justices%20take%20up%20Texas%20woman%E2%80%99s%20claim%20against%20USPS" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fjustices-take-up-texas-womans-claim-against-usps%2F&linkname=Justices%20take%20up%20Texas%20woman%E2%80%99s%20claim%20against%20USPS" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fjustices-take-up-texas-womans-claim-against-usps%2F&linkname=Justices%20take%20up%20Texas%20woman%E2%80%99s%20claim%20against%20USPS" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fjustices-take-up-texas-womans-claim-against-usps%2F&title=Justices%20take%20up%20Texas%20woman%E2%80%99s%20claim%20against%20USPS" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/justices-take-up-texas-womans-claim-against-usps/" data-a2a-title="Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court on Monday morning added one new case, involving a Texas woman’s claim against the U.S. Postal Service, to its docket for the 2025-26 term. The announcement came as part of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042125zor_m648.pdf">a list of orders</a> from the justices’ private conference on Thursday, April 17.</p> <p>The court granted <em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-postal-service-v-konan/">U.S. Postal Service v. Konan</a></em>, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act for claims that “arise out of the loss” or “miscarriage” of “letters or postal matter” does not apply to claims that stem from a USPS employee’s intentional failure to deliver mail to a designated address. (John Elwood discussed the case in more detail in his <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/liability-for-undelivered-mail-and-the-chilling-effect-of-subpoenas/">Relist Watch column</a> last week.)<span id="more-319879"></span></p> <p>The justices also asked the Trump administration for its views in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-620.html">a case brought against Home Depot</a> under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. There is no deadline for the solicitor general to file his brief on behalf of the government.</p> <p>The court once again did not act on several high-profile petitions for review that have been pending for several weeks, including challenges to <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ocean-state-tactical-llc-v-rhode-island/">Rhode Island’s ban on large-capacity magazines</a> and <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snope-v-brown/">Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles</a>, as well as a <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/apache-stronghold-v-united-states/">challenge to the transfer to a mining company of federal land in Arizona</a> that the San Carlos Apache Tribe regards as a sacred site. </p> <p>The justices will meet again on Friday, April 25. Orders from that conference are expected on Monday, April 28, at 9:30 a.m.</p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/21/justices-take-up-texas-womans-claim-against-usps/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/justices-take-up-texas-womans-claim-against-usps/">Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →Pope Francis died at the age of 88 on Easter Monday, meaning a conclave will soon be convened to choose a new leader of the…
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/BoAyEwS_xBO6g4HhQZH2xXn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes" title="Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-11-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes" title="Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-11-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-11-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-11-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-11-1000x1000.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20parents%E2%80%99%20efforts%20to%20exempt%20children%20from%20books%20with%20LGBTQ%20themes" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20parents%E2%80%99%20efforts%20to%20exempt%20children%20from%20books%20with%20LGBTQ%20themes" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20parents%E2%80%99%20efforts%20to%20exempt%20children%20from%20books%20with%20LGBTQ%20themes" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20parents%E2%80%99%20efforts%20to%20exempt%20children%20from%20books%20with%20LGBTQ%20themes" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20parents%E2%80%99%20efforts%20to%20exempt%20children%20from%20books%20with%20LGBTQ%20themes" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes%2F&title=Supreme%20Court%20considers%20parents%E2%80%99%20efforts%20to%20exempt%20children%20from%20books%20with%20LGBTQ%20themes" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes/" data-a2a-title="Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in the first of two cases in April involving religion and public schools. In <em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mahmoud-v-taylor/">Mahmoud v. Taylor</a></em> a coalition of parents from Montgomery County, Md., contend that requiring their children to participate in instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes violates their religious beliefs and thus their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.</p> <p>Montgomery County, in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., is the largest school district in Maryland and one of the country’s most religiously diverse counties. The dispute before the justices on Tuesday began in 2022, when the county approved books featuring LGBTQ+ characters for inclusion in its language-arts curriculum. One book used for young children, <em>Pride Puppy</em>, tells the story of a puppy that gets lost during a Pride parade. Another book tells the story of a girl attending her uncle’s same-sex wedding.<span id="more-319870"></span></p> <p>When the county announced in 2023 that it would not allow parents to opt to have their children excused from instruction involving the storybooks, a group of Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents went to federal court. They contended that the refusal to give them the option to opt their children out violated their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion – specifically, their ability to instruct their children on issues of gender and sexuality according to their faith and to control when and how these issues are introduced to their children.</p> <p>The lower courts rejected the parents’ request for an order that would temporarily require the county, while the litigation continued, to notify the parents when the storybooks would be used and give them a chance to opt out of instruction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit explained that on the “threadbare” record before it, the parents had not shown that exposure to the storybooks compelled them to violate their religion.</p> <p>The parents came to the Supreme Court in September, and the justices agreed to take up their case.</p> <p>In their brief in the Supreme Court, the parents point to two different Supreme Court cases. First, they say, more than 50 years ago in <em><a href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep406/usrep406205/usrep406205.pdf">Wisconsin v. Yoder</a></em>, the justices “recognized ‘beyond debate’ the First Amendment right of parents ‘to guide the religious future and education of their children.’” This means, they say, that under the free exercise clause, parents can opt out of instruction that would “substantially interfere with their religious development.”</p> <p>In <em>Yoder</em>, the parents observe, the court held that Amish parents did not have to send their children to school after the eighth grade, because they believed that doing so conflicted with their religion and way of life. Here, the parents say, they are merely seeking to be able to excuse their young children from one particular subset of the public schools’ instruction that “deliberately seeks to confound their religious values.”</p> <p>And under the Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in <em><a href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep508/usrep508520/usrep508520.pdf">Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah</a></em>, the parents continue, the school board’s policy is unconstitutional because it is neither neutral nor generally applicable. The board of education, the parents stress, has “long allowed notice and opt-outs for any ‘instruction related to family life and human sexuality.’” But by contrast, the parents write, they cannot opt to have their very young children sit out discussions on “sexuality and gender identity during English class.” Moreover, they add, board members have displayed “explicit religious hostility” to the parents who have objected to the curriculum, suggesting that they were aligned with “white supremacists” and “xenophobes.”</p> <p>The Trump administration filed a brief supporting the parents. Sarah Harris, then the acting solicitor general, told the justices that because the county will not notify the parents before the LGBTQ-themed storybooks are used or give them an opportunity to opt out of instruction using those books, parents can only comply with their religious obligations to their children by withdrawing their children from public school altogether. “That,” Harris contends, “is textbook interference with the free exercise of religion” – even if the parents’ children do not ultimately feel pressured or coerced by the instruction using the storybooks. </p> <p>The Montgomery County Board of Education (along with the superintendent of schools, Thomas Taylor, and members of the board) counter that under both the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s cases interpreting the free exercise clause, the parents must show that either they or their children are being coerced to change their religious beliefs or practice. The Supreme Court, they contend, has never held that when parents opt to send their children to public schools, their children’s exposure to material to which their parents have religious objections is the kind of coercion needed to establish a claim under the free exercise clause, and it should not do so here.</p> <p>The board cautions that accepting the parents’ argument that the lack of an opt-out option imposes a burden on their religious beliefs would “leave public education in shreds” “by entitling parents to pick and choose which aspects of the curriculum will be taught to their children.”</p> <p>But in any event, the board continues, the parents have not shown that in this case that there has been any coercion. They have not provided any evidence, the board stresses, “that any parent or child was penalized for his or her religious beliefs, asked to affirm any views contrary to his or her faith, or otherwise prohibited or deterred from engaging in religious practice.”</p> <p>The Supreme Court, the board writes, should not consider the parents’ argument that the policy is not neutral and generally applicable, because they did not make it in the lower courts. But in any event, the board adds, the policy is in fact both of those things: “It treats comparable religious and secular activity exactly the same; no opt-outs from ELA lessons using the storybooks are permitted.” And there is no indication that the policy was based on a hostility to religion. Instead, MCPS decided to stop the opt-outs because it received too many requests that were <em>not</em> based on religion.</p> <p>A decision in the case is expected by late June or early July.</p> <p><em>This article was originally published at Howe on the Court. </em></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes/">Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →Russian President Vladimir Putin gestures while speaking during a ceremony for the Sluzhenie All-Russian Municipal Service Awards at the Russia National Center in Moscow. Russian…
Read more →Former President Barack Obama mourned the loss of “rare leader” Pope Francis in an emotional statement on Monday, hours after the announcement of the death…
Read more →JD Vance paid tribute to Pope Francis on Monday, hours after news broke that the pope had died at 88. The vice president of the…
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/HyCXrV1UipLfMvo5rPmN0Xn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="The morning read for Monday, April 21" title="The morning read for Monday, April 21"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Banner200115r-1-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="The morning read for Monday, April 21" title="The morning read for Monday, April 21" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-monday-april-21%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Monday%2C%20April%2021" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-monday-april-21%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Monday%2C%20April%2021" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-monday-april-21%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Monday%2C%20April%2021" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-monday-april-21%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Monday%2C%20April%2021" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-monday-april-21%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Monday%2C%20April%2021" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-monday-april-21%2F&title=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Monday%2C%20April%2021" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-morning-read-for-monday-april-21/" data-a2a-title="The morning read for Monday, April 21">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court kicks off the final argument of the 2024-25 term today with arguments in <em><a class="case-title" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/becerra-v-braidwood-management-inc/">Kennedy v. Braidwood Management</a></em> and <em><a class="case-title" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/parrish-v-united-states/">Parrish v. U.S.</a></em> Read <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/court-to-hear-challenge-to-aca-preventative-care-coverage/">Amy Howe on <em>Braidwood</em></a><em>, </em>a dispute over a group’s objection to the HHS task force that determines which preventive services, such as the HIV prevention drugs known as PrEP, must be covered by the Affordable Care Act.</p> <p>Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-minnesota-effort-revive-ban-young-adults-carryin-rcna202114">Supreme Court rejects Minnesota effort to revive ban on young adults from carrying guns</a> (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)</li> <li><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/20/politics/obamacare-affordable-care-act-supreme-court-rfk-jr/index.html">Trump is defending Obamacare at the Supreme Court. A win could boost RFK Jr.’s influence</a> (Tierney Sneed, Tami Luhby, & Sarah Owermohle, CNN)</li> <li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/us/politics/supreme-court-childrens-books-gay-trans.html">Supreme Court Story Time: Justices Consider Children’s Books With L.G.B.T.Q. Themes</a> (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)</li> <li><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/21/nationwide-injunctions-supreme-court-00300732">The Supreme Court could deliver a serious blow to Trump’s court challengers</a> (Hassan Ali Kanu & Erica Orden, Politico) </li> <li><a href="https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/145-justice-alitos-misbegotten-dissent">Justice Alito’s Misbegotten Dissent in A.A.R.P.</a> (Steve Vladeck, One First) </li> </ul> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-morning-read-for-monday-april-21/">The morning read for Monday, April 21</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →