Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Tuesday signaled that it is poised to establish a right of parents to opt-out their children from public school instruction that conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs.

The case, brought by a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, specifically seeks a guaranteed exemption from the classroom reading of storybooks with LGBTQ themes, including same-sex marriage and exploration of gender identity.

The parents allege use of the books in elementary school curriculum — without an opportunity to be excused — amounts to government-led indoctrination about sensitive matters of sexuality. The school board insists the books merely expose kids to diverse viewpoints and ideas.

The justices engaged in spirited debate for more than 2 1/2 hours of oral arguments, wrestling with where to draw the line between exposure and coercion, which is forbidden under the First Amendment.

“Is merely being exposed to the reading of the book out loud coercion?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the parents’ attorney Eric Baxter. “Is looking two men getting married — is that the religious objection?”

“Our parents would object to that,” Baxter replied.

Several of the court’s conservative members suggested an opt-out for sensitive subjects should be common sense.

“I’m a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “I’m surprised that this is the hill we’re going to die on, in terms of not respecting religious liberty.”

In 2022, after introducing several LGBTQ-themed books into the language arts curriculum, the school board allowed parents to opt-out if the content was deemed objectionable as a matter of faith. One year later, officials reversed course and said an opt-out program had become unwieldy and ran counter to values of inclusion.

“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” Kavanaugh said later. “The whole goal of some of our religious precedents is to look for the win/win.”

Justice Samuel Alito, who appeared most sympathetic to the parents, said he believes the five books in question — out of more than 100 in the school curriculum — “have a clear message” and that “a lot of people disagree with it.”

“What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out?” Alito asked Alan Schoenfeld, the county’s attorney. “Why is it not administrable? They are able to opt-out of the health class, right?”

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether elementary school students could realistically be assumed to understand that a presentation of the books was different than a teacher’s endorsement of them.

“I understand the idea when you’re talking about a sophomore, a junior, whatever, in high school,” Roberts said, “but I’m not sure that same qualifying factor applies when you’re talking about five-year-olds.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested the board may have exhibited discriminatory “hostility” toward religion in reversing course on the opt-outs, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared inclined to believe the board’s distinct purpose was to coerce children into accepting beliefs about sexuality.

“It was part of the curriculum to teach them that boys can be girls or boys can — or that your pronouns can change depending on how you feel one day to the next?” Barrett asked skeptically.

“Federal courts are not meant to sit as school boards in deciding these curriculum disputes,” Schoenfeld said later, noting that the Montgomery County board was democratically elected by local residents.

The court’s three liberal justices all vigorously challenged the parents’ request in the case, seeing opt-out rights as a slippery slope.

Sotomayor said the list of potential religiously offensive content is limitless, from depictions of women who work, to stories involving divorce, pictures of interfaith marriage, even teachings around evolution.

Justice Elena Kagan said the constitutional right parents are claiming is remarkably broad. “I’m searching for what in the legal arguments would allow us to draw lines in this area, and I’m not finding it,” Kagan said. “It’ll be like opt-outs for everyone.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson worried aloud that a decision siding with the parents could have far-reaching implications beyond books.

She asked about a gay teacher with a photo of his wedding on a desk, or a student group putting “love is love” posters around the campus, or about exposure to a transgender student in the classroom, where a teacher refers to them by their preferred pronouns?

“Is it a burden for a religious student who is being taught at home and through their religion that gender is not a situation that can be changed … to be in a public school classroom where the teacher is referring to another student by what this student believes is the wrong pronoun?” Jackson asked.

“That would, in fact, constitute a burden on religious exercise,” replied Baxter, implying such a student might have a case for an opt-out.

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Disgraced former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., insists he has “accepted full responsibility” for a series of fraudulent schemes despite a “social media blitz” that federal prosecutors said suggested otherwise.

Prosecutors repeated their request for a prison term of more than seven years when Santos is sentenced Friday, saying his recent social media posts show the 35-year-old Santos “remains unrepentant for his crimes.”

Santos, in a letter to the judge Tuesday, said he can be both “profoundly sorry” and upset by the Justice Department’s recommendation of a lengthy prison sentence.

“But saying I’m sorry doesn’t require me to sit quietly while these prosecutors try to drop an anvil on my head. True remorse isn’t mute; it is aware of itself, and it speaks up when the penalty scale jumps into the absurd,” Santos’ letter said.

“Ironically, the same political ambition that underpinned my own wrongdoing now seems to fuel the government’s overreach in this case,” hew wrote. “You’d think they might have learned something from the very person they chose to prosecute so vehemently!”

Santos included a selective chart to suggest the government’s sentencing recommendation is out of step with other political prosecutions, citing former Illinois Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. being sentenced to 30 months for misusing $750,000 in campaign funds or ex-New York Rep. Michael Grimm being sentenced to eight months for concealing $900,000 in wages and taxes.

Prosecutors alleged Santos, with the help of former Campaign Treasurer Nancy Marks, falsified Federal Election Commission filings, fabricating donor contributions and inflating fundraising totals to meet the $250,000 threshold required to join the National Republican Congressional Committee’s coveted “Young Guns” program. Marks pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing in June.

When informed he hadn’t reached the NRCC benchmark, Santos texted an associate, “We are going to do this a little differently. I got it.”

The “different” approach included submitting fake donations attributed to family members, fictitious individuals and even identities stolen from elderly supporters, according to the filing.

Santos pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in August 2024. He had already been expelled from Congress in December 2023.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Michigan is set to face a competitive primary and fierce race for the battleground state’s open U.S. Senate seat in 2026.

Three major Democrats have already entered the contest, while Republicans eye flipping the seat, which will be vacated by retiring Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich.

The battleground state had mixed results for both parties in 2024, with President Donald Trump snagging a win in the presidential race and then-Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat, prevailing in the Senate race. Democrats hope to keep the open seat in their hands, while Republicans hope to flip it and add to their majority in the Senate.

Rep. Haley Stevens, a Democrat who represents Michigan’s 11th District, revealed on Tuesday that she will run for Senate, with an announcement focused on the state’s automobile industry and how it may be affected by tariffs imposed by the White House.

“Growing up in Michigan meant being surrounded by innovation, ingenuity and pride in hard work. And from our farmers to our nurses to our manufacturers, Michigan has the best workers in the world,” Stevens said in an announcement video posted on social media on Tuesday.

“But Donald Trump has a much different plan for Michigan,” she added.

“His chaos and reckless tariffs are putting tens of thousands of Michigan jobs at risk,” she said, adding that costs are rising “but all we’re getting is more chaos. What the heck are they doing?”

Stevens, first elected to the House in 2018, is a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee and the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. She also served as chief of staff of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry during the Obama administration.

In 2022, she endured a competitive member-on-member primary against then-Rep. Andy Levin, although she was bolstered by outside support from pro-Israel groups. (The U.S.-Israel relationship is a hot-button issue in Michigan and became a wedge issue during the 2024 elections.)

She is set to face a competitive Democratic primary, which includes two other high-profile figures. (One key name took himself out of contention already: Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg ruled out a Senate bid in March.)

Abdul El-Sayed, the former director of the Wayne County, Michigan, health department and a former Michigan gubernatorial candidate, announced on Thursday he will run for the seat — and he netted a quick endorsement from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

“I’m running for U.S. Senate because in the state that built the ‘American dream,’ it shouldn’t be this hard just to get by,” El-Sayed said in an announcement video that opened with a fictional, old-style cartoon talking about his background.

“We’ve got to fight back hard against Trump and [Elon] Musk with a hell of a lot more than paper paddles and broken promises. … The disease is the corruption of our politics by billionaires and corporations, while the workers who built this country are forgotten,” he added in the announcement in clips that appear to be from a podcast taping.

Sanders, who has received renewed national attention in recent months as he attracts crowds on his nationwide “Fighting Oligarchy” speaking tour, endorsed El-Sayed the same day.

Earlier in April, Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow announced her own Senate bid.

In an announcement video, which opened with a montage of news clips about Trump and a clip of Musk’s viral moment in February holding a chainsaw, McMorrow said, “There are moments that will break you. This is not that moment. This moment will challenge us, test us. And if it all feels like too much? That’s they’re plan. They want to make you feel powerless. But you are not powerless.”

McMorrow entered the national spotlight after being baselessly accused of aiming to “groom and sexualize kindergartners” in a 2022 fundraising email sent out by a fellow state senator. She struck back in a now-viral floor speech, saying, “I am the biggest threat to your hollow, hateful scheme.”

In her announcement video, McMorrow framed the Trump administration as creating a fearful moment in time and said new leaders are needed — echoing a debate within the Democratic Party about whether it needs generational change at the top of the party.

“There’s a lot of fear and anger and uncertainty right now about people in power who frankly have no business being there. So you know what won’t fix it? The same old crap out of Washington,” McMorrow said, “We need new leaders because the same people in D.C. who got us into this mess are not going to be the ones to get us out of it.”

On the Republican side, the primary is still taking shape, but one major name has entered the fray.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers, who ran for Senate in Michigan in 2024 and narrowly lost to Slotkin, announced in mid-April that he would enter the race.

“The lessons I learned working on a factory floor, serving as an officer in the United States Army, and then as a federal agent protecting our communities, taking down drug dealers and gangsters — it taught me about grit and sacrifice,” Rogers said in an announcement video.

“I’ll stand with President Trump,” he added. “And we will deliver on the mandate given to him by the American people. … For me, it will always be America and Michigan first.”

Rogers also spoke about cutting costs and prices while bringing manufacturing jobs back to Michigan.

“I guarantee we’ll protect Social Security for our seniors,” Rogers added.

Notably, Rogers has received some key support from establishment Republicans — even though the primary field is not fully set. In a pair of statements released through the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the campaign arm of Senate Republicans, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., who is chairman of the NRSC, both endorsed Rogers.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Three federal prosecutors who worked on the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams resigned Tuesday — while they were on administrative leave — instead of agreeing to “preconditions” on them returning to the office, sending a sharp letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and accusing him of pressuring them to falsely “express regret and admit some wrongdoing” in the case.

“The Department placed each of us on administrative leave ostensibly to review our, and the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney’s Office’s, handling of the Adams case,” the trio of prosecutors assigned to Adams’ case, Celia V. Cohen, Andrew Rohrbach and Derek Wikstrom, wrote to Blanche. “It is now clear that one of the preconditions you have placed on our returning to the Office is that we must express regret and admit some wrongdoing by the Office in connection with the refusal to move to dismiss the case. We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none.”

The three lawyers were part of a group in the Justice Department who refused to sign off on the dismissal of the bribery case against Adams in February. They were placed on administrative leave last month as an investigation played out.

“We have served under Presidents of both parties, advancing their priorities while pursuing justice without fear or favor,” the three prosecutors wrote. “The role of a career prosecutor is not to set policy. But a prosecutor must abide by the oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the rules of professional ethics set by the bar and the courts.”

They later added, “Now, the Department has decided that obedience supersedes all else, requiring us to abdicate our legal and ethical obligations in favor of directions from Washington. That is wrong.”

The fallout from acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove’s request that the Southern District of New York dismiss charges without prejudice began in mid-February. Danielle Sassoon, then-acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, resigned from her position Feb. 13 after suggesting DOJ leadership, including Bove, were explicitly aware of a quid pro quo suggested by Adams’ attorneys, saying Adams’ vocal support of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies would be boosted by dismissing the indictment against him.

“Rather than be rewarded, Adams’s advocacy should be called out for what it is: an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal of his case,” Sassoon wrote at the time. “Although Mr. Bove disclaimed any intention to exchange leniency in this case for Adams’s assistance in enforcing federal law, that is the nature of the bargain laid bare in Mr. Bove’s memo.”

Five other DOJ officials would join Sassoon in resigning from the office in protest, while at least six top Department of Justice officials refused to sign onto the case’s dismissal, sources told ABC News last month.

Adams was indicted last year in the Southern District of New York on five counts in an alleged long-standing conspiracy connected to improper benefits, illegal campaign contributions and an attempted cover-up. He had pleaded not guilty.

The dismissal paperwork was later signed by an attorney in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, leaving the decision to dismiss the case to a federal judge in New York.

On April 2, Judge Dale Ho officially dismissed the case, however, he did so with prejudice, meaning the charges cannot be revived. The DOJ had asked for the charges to be dismissed without prejudice and said they could be brought against Adams again following the November mayoral election.

But three weeks later, the fallout continued with Tuesday’s letter.

The three prosecutors ended their letter to Blanche: “Serving in the Southern District of New York has been an honor. There is no greater privilege than to work for an institution whose mandate is to do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons. We will not abandon this principle to keep our jobs. We resign.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A panel of appeals judges expressed skepticism with elements of the Trump administration’s transgender service member ban, peppering a Department of Justice lawyer with questions Tuesday morning about the basis for the ban and justification for blocking anyone with gender dysphoria from service without making individualized determinations.

DOJ attorney Jason Manion attempted to justify the policy by arguing that transgender troops lessen the readiness of the U.S. military and that the policy falls under a “core area of presidential power.”

“The military has determined that this policy will increase the readiness and effectiveness of the military and, in fact, that not being able to enact it would be harmful to the military,” he argued.

Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, pushed back on the assertion by highlighting that the Pentagon did not provide concrete evidence or research to show that transgender members of the military are less lethal or less ready for combat.

“If the military said people with red hair are just too fragile and vulnerable, we are going to kick them all out of the military and we are going to not allow any of them ever to join — we have no evidence of that, but we think they’re a threat to military preparedness, to unit cohesion, and too costly, and so we’re just going to kick them out, is that rational enough under military deference?” she asked.

Manion attempted to argue that gender dysphoria is “marked by severe clinical distress or impaired functioning,” but Pillard noted that the military already screens soldiers for depression and suicidal ideation.

Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both Trump appointees who also served in his first administration, also raised concerns that the policy treats soldiers the same based on their sex, rather than allow individualized determinations.

“Should the military be required to take an individualized determination?” Rao asked. “Is the decision not to make individualized determinations some indication that this is treating people the same based on the transgender status?”

Shannon Minter, an attorney for the group of 32 transgender service members and recruits who challenged the policy, urged the court to stop the ban from taking effect, arguing the Trump administration has failed to prove why thousands of transgender soldiers deserve to be declared unfit for service.

“The government have a high burden here, and it has not been able to meet any part of it,” Minter said.

The group sued the Trump administration over the policy in January, and at least three different federal judges have since blocked the ban from taking effect.

“The Court’s opinion is long, but its premise is simple. In the self-evident truth that ‘all people are created equal, all means all. Nothing more. And certainly nothing less,” Judge Ana Reyes wrote in a ruling last month blocking the policy.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overrule Reyes’ decision, arguing that gender dysphoria “limits deployability and imposes additional costs on the military” and is “not compatible with military readiness and lethality.”

Lawyers with the DOJ have argued that the courts should defer to military leadership about the best way to run the armed services.

“Plaintiffs offer no sound basis for concluding that the line the military has once again drawn falls outside constitutional bounds,” DOJ lawyers wrote.

But lawyers representing the transgender service members have pushed back on the Pentagon’s claim, arguing the Trump administration has provided no evidence of the harm stemming from the policy.

They argued that allowing the policy to take effect would “trigger an explosive and harmful trip wire, causing reputational, professional, and constitutional harm that can never be fully undone.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday strongly denied that what he shared over a second group chat on the Signal messaging app were classified war plans about imminent U.S. airstrikes targeting Houthi militants in Yemen, and blamed former staffers for leaking, accusing them of going to the news media with new information to “sabotage” Trump’s agenda.

Hegseth and other administration officials have insisted that the information about those airstrikes that was shared earlier with another Signal group established by national security adviser Mike Waltz was not classified.

On Tuesday, Hegseth continued to make that case as questions have been raised about how he shared similar information with a smaller Signal group that sources told ABC News included his wife, brother, and personal attorney.

“I look at war plans every single day. What was shared over Signal then and now, however you characterize it, was informal unclassified coordination for media coordination other things. That’s what I’ve said from the beginning,” Hegseth said in a live interview from the Pentagon on “Fox & Friends.”

Sources familiar with the chat had earlier told ABC News that Hegseth had established the Signal group with family and friends during his Senate confirmation process. Hegseth was not asked in the interview why he had shared the information with that group of close personal advisers that included his wife, who is not a U.S. government employee.

The defense secretary also criticized former close advisers fired last week as part of what he said was leak investigation that followed news reports about military plans for the Panama Canal, Elon Musk’s planned visit to the Pentagon and other developments.

“It led to some unfortunate places, people I have known for quite some time, but it’s not my job to protect them,” said Hegseth. “It’s my job to protect national security the president of the United States and let the investigation go where it is. So, when that evidence is gathered sufficiently, and this has all happened very quickly, it will be handed over to DOJ, and those people will be prosecuted if necessary.”

The former staffers include Dan Caldwell, a longtime close adviser to Hegseth, Darin Selnick, who was the Pentagon’s deputy chief of staff, and Colin Carroll, who served as chief of staff for the deputy secretary of defense and on Tuesday Hegseth claimed, without evidence, that they were responsible for news leaks intended to “sabotage” the Trump administration’s agenda for the Pentagon.

“Those folks who are leaking, who have been pushed out of the building, are now attempting to leak and sabotage the president’s agenda and what we’re doing, and that’s unfortunate,” said Hegseth.

“So, once a leaker, always a leaker, often a leaker, and so we look for leakers, because we take it very seriously, and we will do the investigation,” said Hegseth.

At the same time, Hegseth left open the possibility that the ongoing investigation might exonerate the very people he was accusing.

“If those people are exonerated, fantastic,” said Hegseth. “We don’t think, based on what we understand, that it’s going to be a good day for a number of those individuals because of what was found in the investigation.”

On Monday, in a video interview with Tucker Carlson, Caldwell vigorously denied that he had leaked information and said he and the other two officials did not know why they had been fired.

Also on Monday, Hegseth blamed “anonymous smears” and President Donald Trump dismissed any concerns, said he has “great confidence” in Hegseth..

“Here we go again. Just a waste of time. He is doing a great job,” Trump said of Hegseth.

The recent disclosures of the new Signal group and the dismissal of top advisers have raised questions about Hegseth’s judgment among a large number of congressional Democrats who have called for Hegseth to step down from his post.

On Monday, Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, and a former Air Force general, became the first Republican to suggest that Hegseth should be removed as defense secretary.

“If it’s true that he had another chat with his family, about the missions against the Houthis, it’s totally unacceptable,” he told Politico.

“It looks like there’s a meltdown going on,” Bacon said. “There’s a lot — a lot — of smoke coming out of the Pentagon, and I got to believe there’s some fire there somewhere.”

On Tuesday, Hegseth claimed that critics of his Pentagon agenda have “come after me from day one” but said his focus would remain on carrying out his goals at the Pentagon.

“I’m here because President Trump asked me to bring warfighting back to the Pentagon every single day,” said Hegseth.

“That is our focus, and if people don’t like it, they can come after me. No worries. I’m standing right here,” Hegseth said. “The warfighters are behind us. Our enemies know they’re on notice. Our allies know we’re behind them, and that in this dangerous world for the American people is what it’s all about.”

“No, I haven’t blinked, and I won’t blink because this job is too big and too important for the American people,” he said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The top federal prosecutor in Manhattan has agreed to step aside, clearing the way for President Donald Trump on Tuesday to install his nominee as interim United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, yet another shake-up for the nation’s most prominent federal prosecutor’s office

Matthew Podolsky, who has agreed to step down, took over for Danielle Sassoon, who in February resigned in protest of the Justice Department’s order to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams.

Sassoon had been named interim U.S. attorney by Trump when the president fired Edward Kim, who assumed the role during the change in administrations.

Trump’s nominee, Jay Clayton, will serve in an interim capacity for up to four months until confirmed by the Senate or appointed by federal judges in Manhattan. Clayton was the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump’s first term in office.

Before leading the SEC, Clayton was a partner at New York law firm Sullivan & Cromwell and worked with Wall Street firms and other corporations to navigate federal regulations.

Trump tried to install Clayton during his first term but then-U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman refused to resign until then-Attorney General Bill Barr agreed to replace him with a trusted deputy.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer recently signaled his intent to block Clayton’s nomination over frustration with Trump, who he said “has no fidelity to the law.”

“Donald Trump has made clear he has no fidelity to the law and intends to use the Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney offices and law enforcement as weapons to go after his perceived enemies,” Schumer said in a statement last week. “Such blatant and depraved political motivations are deeply corrosive to the rule of law and leaves me deeply skeptical of the Donald Trump’s intentions for these important positions. For that reason, I will not return the blue slip for the U.S. Attorney nominees for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.”

By naming Clayton as his interim choice, Trump is likely able to get his way without putting Clayton through a confirmation process.

After 120 days, judges in the Southern District of New York can vote to appoint Clayton to the job until there’s a confirmed nominee, and Trump could simply name no one else.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration’s ban on transgender service members faces its next legal test Tuesday when a federal appeals court considers the legality of the policy.

A group of 32 transgender service members and recruits sued the Trump administration over the policy in January, and at least three different federal judges have since blocked the ban from taking effect.

“The Court’s opinion is long, but its premise is simple. In the self-evident truth that ‘all people are created equal, all means all. Nothing more. And certainly nothing less,” Judge Ana Reyes wrote in a ruling last month blocking the policy.

The Trump administration has asked the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule Judge Reyes’ decision, arguing that gender dysphoria “limits deployability and imposes additional costs on the military” and is “not compatible with military readiness and lethality.”

Lawyers with the Department of Justice have argued that the courts should defer to military leadership about the best way to run the armed services.

“Plaintiffs offer no sound basis for concluding that the line the military has once again drawn falls outside constitutional bounds,” DOJ lawyers wrote.

But lawyers representing the transgender service members have pushed back on the Pentagon’s claim, arguing the Trump administration has provided no evidence of the harm stemming from the policy.

They argued that allowing the policy to take effect would “trigger an explosive and harmful trip wire, causing reputational, professional, and constitutional harm that can never be fully undone.”

The appeal will be considered by a federal judiciary reshaped by the Trump administration, with two of the three judges hearing Tuesday’s appeal not only nominated by Trump but also previously served in his first administration.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Do parents of public school children have a constitutional right to opt-out their kids from classroom lessons involving storybooks that feature LGBTQ themes or characters?

The Supreme Court will tackle that question Tuesday in a closely watched First Amendment case that comes as the Trump administration moves to empower parents and root out diversity and inclusion initiatives across the U.S. education system.

A group of parents, including Muslims, Orthodox Ukrainians, Christians and Jews from Montgomery County, Maryland, claim constitutional protections for religious exercise mean they must have an opportunity to exempt their children from any instruction on gender or sexuality that may be counter to teachings of faith.

“We’re under no illusion, they’ll learn about these things, but in the formative years, what ultimately we could not agree with [Montgomery County Public Schools], is where inclusion stopped and indoctrination started,” said Wael Elkoshairi, who is homeschooling his fourth-grade daughter because he says the books infringe on his Muslim faith.

The school board, made up of locally elected representatives, says the purpose of education is to expose children to a broad mix of people and ideas — and that the Constitution does not guarantee students the right to skip lessons inconsistent with their beliefs.

Lower courts sided with the board. The justices will now take a closer look at whether the county’s refusal to grant an opt-out to parents illegally burdens their religious rights.

“The case is a good illustration of the fact that public schools are at ground zero in the culture wars,” said Jim Walsh, a Texas lawyer who represents school boards and is a member of the National School Attorneys Association.

“We all want the school to reflect our values, but we don’t agree on our values. And certainly issues about same-sex marriage, the rights of lesbians and gays, are right at the center of that,” he said.

Starting in 2022, Montgomery County — one of the most diverse counties in the country — introduced a series of LGBTQ-themed storybooks for reading in elementary school classrooms under a statewide mandate to be more inclusive of the diversity of families and children attending the schools.

The local school board, which closely consulted with educators in approving the curriculum, maintains that the books do not take a side on issues of gender or sexuality and that teachers are instructed not to teach or enforce any particular view.

Among the illustrated titles is “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” by Sarah Brannen, about a young girl who worries her close relationship with a beloved uncle will change after he marries his male fiance. “Prince & Knight” by Daniel Haack presents a fairy-tale narrative about a blossoming romance between the main characters after a dramatic rescue from a dragon.

“Nothing in my book is any different than most fairy tales that have some sort of romance at the center of it,” said Haack. “Nothing different than “Sleeping Beauty” or “Cinderella” or any of those.”

In the book “Intersection Allies,” a group of three sociologist authors set out to simplify complex ideas about identity, including what it means to be nonbinary.

“We wrote this to affirm kids who are left out of the stories that we often tell,” said LaToya Council, one of the authors. “This book is not saying that, you know, your child has to choose to be transgender. It’s saying respect someone who is trans and their ability to seek spaces that are comfortable for them.”

Chelsea Johnson, another of the book’s authors, insisted nothing in the text asks anyone to change their beliefs. “Schools and parents and communities are partners with each other and helping kids make sense of the world and we don’t have to opt our kids out to do that.”

Montgomery County guidelines advise educators to make the storybooks available for students to read on their own, to read aloud, or share in reading groups. Teachers are instructed not to advance a particular viewpoint about sexuality or gender with respect to the characters.

At first, during the 2022-2023 school year, the board allowed parents to opt-out their kids from any lessons involving the books, but it later changed course, denying any opt-outs.

“When I was in school, I was opted-out of sex ed because I wasn’t ready, and my parents didn’t feel it was appropriate for the teachers to talk about it, and it didn’t hurt anyone,” said Billy Moges, a mother of three and devout Christian, who pulled her kids from Montgomery County schools because of the books.

“The problem with some of these books, though, as well, is they were love stories, so it was not just exposure to LGBTQ characters. These were love stories,” said Elkoshairi.

School officials explained in court documents that administering an opt-out program became too cumbersome to manage, led to higher rates of student absenteeism, and was ultimately inconsistent with an educational mission of supporting all types of families.

“These books are representing the community that is surrounding these children,” said Emily McGowan, who mothers second- and sixth-graders with her wife Sharon in Montgomery County. “You cannot deny that we exist. We live here, our kids go to school here.”

The McGowans say opt-outs over LGBTQ stories harm the children whose family lives are represented in the books.

“The idea that 10 of their classmates get to get up and walk out because there’s two mommies in this book — What is the message that’s sent to our kid who has two mommies?” said Sharon McGowan. “That something is so offensive about this that they get to walk out and maybe they even get to go to the playground and have extra play time?”

Nearly every state gives parents the ability to opt-out their children from sex education classes but opt-outs for LGBTQ issues vary widely by community and are often decided by board members elected by local parents, Walsh said.

“We can all understand parents having strong feelings about when and how is my child going to be taught about sexual issues. So, there are more opt-outs about this than anything else. But if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, it’s not gonna stop with just sex and gender issues. It will cover a wide variety of things that parents may have objections to,” he said.

The case comes as the Trump administration has vowed to give more control over education to local leaders and communities. But even in places where school boards are choosing to prioritize diversity, equity and inclusion in their curriculum — like Montgomery County — some conservatives are still pushing to override policies.

“The school board has decided to disrupt the thinking of their children on an area that has long been understood as going to the core of parental authority for their children, on sex and gender,” said Will Haun, a senior attorney at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court. “In that area, the First Amendment absolutely protects the parents.”

“The democratic process is important, and that’s where we debate curriculum,” Haun added, “but here we’re talking about restoring an opt-out right, which is not a challenge to the curriculum.”

Wael Elkoshairi insists he harbors no ill will toward LGBTQ families and says he isn’t calling for a ban on any books. But he hopes the high court — as a matter of faith — will give parents greater control.

“When people have differences of opinion on certain things, accommodations work well to relieve everybody, and we move on,” Elkosairi said.

As for the McGowans, they are hoping the court’s conservative majority holds the line.

“The fact that the Court took the case at all — I don’t have reason to believe that they took the case to affirm the importance of inclusion in the public schools,” said Sharon McGowan. “If harm is done by their decision, we will figure out what we need to do at a personal and a community level to mitigate that harm.”

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Department of Homeland Security Seceretary Kristi Noem’s purse was stolen at a Washington restaurant over the weekend, according to a DHS official.

Noem had $3,000 in cash in her purse, along with her passport, makeup bag, DHS access card, apartment key and other items.

A DHS official said the secretary had the cash because her family was in town and she was treating them to Easter festivities.

A man wearing a mask walked by the secretary’s table and snatched the purse. The Secret Service is investigating, according to the DHS official.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.