The Daily - Children’s Books Go Before the Supreme Court

Episode Date: April 25, 2025

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard a case that could hand parents with religious objections a lot more control over what their kids learn in the classroom.Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court, explains how a case about children’s picture books with titles like “Pride Puppy” and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” has broad implications for schools across the country.Guest: Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments, for The New York Times.Background reading: In a lively and sometimes heated argument, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared set to allow opt-outs from L.G.B.T.Q. stories in schools.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

From the New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams, and this is The Daily. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard a case that could hand parents with religious objections a lot more control over what their kids learn in the classroom. Or more specifically, what they don't learn. Today, my colleague Adam Liptec explains how a case about children's picture books, with titles like Pride Puppy and Uncle Bobby's Wedding, has broad implications for schools across the country. It's Friday, April 25th. Adam welcome back to the show.

I feel like we're talking pretty frequently these days. Seems that way. So we have had you on the show a lot recently talking about the growing constitutional crisis that is happening under the Trump administration in this country. But I just want to acknowledge that that is not what we are going to talk about today. Because today we are going to talk about what feels like a very normal, very interesting Supreme Court case that has some pretty big implications. Right. Obviously, we have a constitutional crisis

or a series of them hanging like a cloud over the court. But the Roberts Court is still in business, still hearing major cases on culture wars issues. And on Tuesday, they heard a good one. So tell us about that case. The case arose from the curriculum of Montgomery County, Maryland public schools. Montgomery County is a quite liberal suburb of Washington, D.C. And in 2022, along with all the other storybooks that kids in pre-K through fifth grade read, they added initially seven new books that included

gay and trans characters and themes. And when they first introduced these new books, they gave parents with religious objections notice that on a certain day the books would be discussed in class, and if you wanted to take your kids out of class, if you wanted to opt out, you could. And a number of parents did, and that system went on for about a year. According to the school board, it wasn't working. It was hard to administer, you had to figure out where to put the kids, it seemed to be leading to absenteeism all day. And they said also that it stigmatized kids from families with gay and trans members who were confused about why discussion of

books reflecting their lives was so provocative that other kids had to be withdrawn from school. So on that reasoning, the school said, we're not going to give notice anymore. We're not going to let you opt out. If you want to go to public school, you will have the whole curriculum, including these books. And so what happened after that? So parents of many faiths were quite upset. They sued. They said, we're not asking you to take these books out of the library. We're not not asking you to take these books out of the library. We're not even asking you to take these books out of the classroom. We just want to go back to the system where on days these books are going to be discussed, you tell us and you give

us the option to take our kids out of class. Hosting may be this is really obvious, but can you just explain a little bit more what specifically do the parents object to in these books? The parents say that these books are a kind of indoctrination, that in depicting families with gay members, with trans members, in talking about same-sex marriage, in talking about preferred pronouns, the books tackle subjects that the parents say are not only age inappropriate, but at odds with their ability to exercise the religious freedom guaranteed to them by the Constitution.

So I just want to make sure I understand this. The parents' objection is essentially that the message in these books condones LGBTQ characters and living openly as LGBTQ people, and because that objection is grounded in their religious observance, that's why their rights are being violated? Is that it? Yeah, that's right. So these parents, and they're of many faiths, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, other, say that their faiths don't acknowledge same-sex marriage, for instance, and that having their

children exposed to these ideas puts a burden on their constitutional right, guaranteed by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, to raise their kids as they wish without hearing things in a public school mandated by the government at odds with what they believe to be appropriate. Well, let's talk about the actual books. What are they about? Well, Rachel, I happen to have a couple of the books. And let me give you a tour of one of them. Amazing, please.

Uncle Bobby's Wedding. Okay. It's a storybook for young kids. It's full of colorful pictures. And the theme of the book is that a young girl named Chloe has a favorite uncle, Bobby, who's getting married to another man, Jamie. And she's unhappy about this. I'm going to pick up in the middle of the book, read you a little bit of it just to give you the flavor. Great.

Mommy said, Chloe, I don't understand. Why is Uncle Bobby getting married? Bobby and Jamie love each other, said Mommy. When grown-up people love each other that much, sometimes they get married. But, said Chloe, Bobby is my special uncle. I don't want him to get married. I think you should talk to him," said Mummy. Chloe found Uncle Bobby sitting on a swing. Why do you have to get married? she asked. Jamie and I want to live together and have our own family, said Bobby.

You want kids? Only if they're just like you,, Bobby. And it goes on. Chloe becomes more cheerful. She actually saves the day near the end of the book when a wedding ring goes missing and she finds it. And the wedding goes off without a hitch, and everyone is happy. Okay, so that sounds like it's either a cute story about a girl and her uncle,

where the fact that he's marrying another man is sort of incidental to the story itself, or to the parents who are objecting to these books, it sounds like they are reading this as an overt message of support of a gay marriage and therefore something that they feel should not be anywhere near a classroom. Yeah, that's right. So these books have obviously now found themselves in front of the Supreme Court. Take me to the oral arguments on Tuesday. How do they start? We will hear argument first this morning in case 24297, Mahmoud versus Taylor.

Mr. Baxter? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. They start with a lawyer for the parents, Eric Baxter. Parents everywhere care about how their young children are taught sexuality and gender identity. Saying basically, we're not asking for much. Forcing petitioners to submit their children to such instruction violates their religious beliefs and directly interferes with their ability to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

These books are ours with our faith. All we want to do is take our kids out of class when they're discussed. And the alternative, he says, is really difficult for parents because their alternative is to withdraw their kids from public school. One family moved in with grandparents to afford private school. Another is homeschooling at the loss of $25,000 a year in special services the school provided their daughter with Down syndrome. Most have no alternatives. Which may not be possible for some people.

So he's sort of saying, let's weigh the equities here. Let's sort of balance out what the cost and the benefit is here. And he says it's a small ask. Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters. I welcome the court's questions. But for the justices to decide this question, they have to think about a threshold question. Is the mere exposure of kids to ideas like this a burden on religion and it's not obvious that it is and so right away Justice Clarence Thomas dives into this question about

whether schools are burdening the religious freedom of parents. Could you spend a minute or two to explain how the record shows that the children are more than merely exposed to these sorts of things in the storybooks. Yes, Your Honor. I would start with the board… And he focuses on a distinction that's a little legalistic, but it's really at the heart of what we're talking about. And that's the question of a distinction between exposure on the one hand and coercion on the other. And just explain that distinction.

Well, exposure is something that happens to all of us every day. We read things, see things, apply critical analysis to them. Just because we've heard it doesn't mean we believe it. Coercion is kind of indoctrination, is kind of forcing someone to say or believe something. And the question for the court is, does that interfere with the parental right at home to raise kids in their faith to the extent that we've moved from mere exposure to something much more significant, coercion? What I'm talking about is not necessarily

what the books say, but rather is that, are the books just there and no more, or are they actually being taught out of the books? So what does the lawyer for the parents say about this distinction? How are they viewing this? The lawyer for the parents repeatedly makes the point that this is not about books being available to kids. No, we know that the teachers are required to use the books when the books were first

introduced. This is about books being required to be read in class and discussed. One of the schools, the Sherwood School in June for Pride Month said that they were going to read one book each day to celebrate Pride Month. So that, he says, makes it much more likely to be coercive than something sitting on a shelf that a child may read him or herself. Right.

Basically, the actual reading to the child, the fact that that is more active is sort of the distinction here. Yeah. Can I just ask, why does the school require these books to be read to begin with? Like, why are they actually part of the curriculum? Well, what they say is that the books are meant to teach respect and kindness and to introduce kids to the idea that they're all sorts of different people from all sorts of different kinds of families and to reinforce the idea that it's important to respect people's

differences. Got it. So, the kids are actively reading these books, or they're being read to them. How do the justices determine whether the contents of the books themselves actually qualify as coercive to the kids? Well, they do it in what may be the most obvious way.

Justice Sotomayor jumps in and says, let's talk about the actual books. Let's talk about Uncle Bobby's wedding. My new favorite book. Uncle Bobby's wedding. My new favorite book. Uncle Bobby's wedding is going to be, as a result of this, shooting up the bestseller list, I imagine. Watch out, hunger caterpillar. Good night, good night, moon.

And she says. Because I'm looking at the books, I've looked through all of them. They have two men, little Bobby's wedding, where they're getting married, one is black and one is white, in this rendition of the book. Is looking at two men getting married, is that the religious objection? Listen, this is just a story about a couple who love each other and get married and what's the problem here. And Justice Alito jumps in and says, wait a second.

To Uncle Bobby's wedding. I've read that book as well as a lot of these other books. I've read this book. Yeah, the book has a clear message. And a lot of people think it's a good message. And maybe it is a good message. But it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with. And it not only features same-sex marriage, which some people think is a good idea, but some people with religious objections think is a bad idea, but it also endorses it. Uncle Bobby gets married to his boyfriend, Jamie, and everybody's happy and everything is, you know, it portrays this.

Everyone accepts this except for the little girl, Chloe, who has reservations about it. But her mother corrects her. No, you shouldn't have any reservations about this. Because little Chloe has an objection to same-sex marriage and her mother disagrees with her and tells her it's fine. Justice Sotomayor says that's a misreading of Uncle Bobby's wedding. Counsel, a couple of questions to clarify things. Uncle Bob's wedding, the character, the child character, wasn't objecting to

same-sex marriage. She was objecting to the fact that marriage would take her uncle away from spending more time with her, correct? Again, it would be, you know, courts would be engaged in religious discrimination. I'm asking you to answer my question. It wasn't that she was objecting to gay marriage, quagga marriage, period. She was objecting to having her uncle's time taken by someone else. I'm not sure that's correct, Your Honor. I think for a child of that age it's hard to express what their actual concerns are. So we sort of have a book club going on at the Supreme Court with varying interpretations

of Uncle Bobby's wedding. And Justice Sotomayor and I were discussing this before, and we could have a book club. And Justice Alito himself calls it this. Have a debate about how Uncle Bobby's marriage should be understood. But I think it also tells you something about the Supreme Court, that they managed to read it differently. And it's one thing if you read a statute differently, but you would think that there could be consensus on the meaning of a children's book. Yeah, exactly.

This is not the Talmud. Like the idea that the Supreme Court justices are arguing over the meaning of a book for children this small is just, it's really kind of incredible. Right. Justice Alito? And Justice Alito follows up on that point. What are the ages of the children who are involved here? He asks, how old are the children reading these books?

And the lawyer for the parents says... These books were approved for pre-K, which in Montgomery County can start as early as three if they're going to turn four that fall. They're quite young. Now, would you agree that at a certain age students are capable of understanding this point, which probably is not a point that can be understood by a four or five year old, and that is that my teacher who was generally telling me that certain things are right and certain things are wrong isn't necessarily going to be correct on everything. It is possible for

me to disagree. And Alito says essentially, shouldn't age be a factor here? And I guess there's a logic to that position. I mean, assuming you accept that the books are pushing a vision of family life at odds with what religious parents want to have their children see and read. It's probably true that a young child, more impressionable, less likely to use critical thought and push back on what a teacher is reading to him or her, is more likely to be, whatever coercion means, coerced than an older kid who might read a book and apply critical faculties to it and accept it or not and kind

of reason with it, debate with it. So it may be that exposure is more likely to be the apt word for a teenager, while coercion would fit more neatly when we're talking about a very young child. So in other words, Alito is saying that basically exposure is coercion for little kids. Like, when they're that young, you can't really distinguish. Yeah, that's right so far as it goes, Rachel. But Justice Jackson? Justice Katanji Brown Jackson pushes back on the idea.

Let me ask you another series of questions, because I'm just trying to understand the implications. And she said it's actually not that easy. Is your argument actually confined to the content of the school's curriculum? Even in school, you're exposed to all kinds of ideas, not just in the books you're reading. And she brings up some examples. What if we have a teacher who is gay and has a photo of a wedding on her desk? Is a parent able or could they opt out of having their student be in that classroom? What if you have a gay teacher who puts out a wedding picture on her desk and talks about her wedding?

Is that coercion? What about the teacher showing pictures from the wedding? Here the board is imposing indoctrination on children. What if a student group puts up love is love posters around the school featuring same-sex couples or trans youth? What about having a trans kid in the class, or a trans teacher, or posters celebrating gay rights? What about your principal says that a religious parent shouldn't be able to say,

I don't want my kid walking in that part of the school? Like, where does it end? Exactly. We live in the world, even if we're young children. We see what we see, we learn what we learn, and we go home and our parents can explain it to us. So this is not just about books, this is about exposure to people of different sexual orientations and the objection, the sincerely held objection, that children shouldn't be exposed to this. Justice Jackson certainly seems to think that this is not a case where you give parents veto power over what their children learn in school and into pick and choose

from a public school's curriculum. So how does the lawyer for the parents respond to this idea that basically this case would open up the floodgates to a bunch of objections that schools would basically find unmanageable? He has two responses. the floodgates to a bunch of objections that schools would basically find unmanageable. He has two responses. Again, we don't think that any child has the right to dictate what the school does or what else. One is practical, that opt-outs are allowed in a lot of the country, and they're not

much used, and it hasn't been a real problem. The other, though, is that he says yes. As a religious matter, if you have a sincerely held religious belief, you can object to many things. We've never said that there's an independent right to be noted for schools to anticipate what parents might object to. But when parents know something, there

could be a sincere religious burden. And the teaching of those things to your children in public school does burden your religious rights. He acknowledges that that's not the end of the inquiry. After you've found a burden, you still apply a kind of balancing test. The strict scrutiny analysis would favor the board in that situation because it would be impossible for the board to satisfy every student's needs about what's on the board. And the parents would not always win.

Thank you, counsel. But that second answer sure suggests that if the court rules in favor of the parents, there will be some very difficult issues about how to manage public schools in the face of religious objections going forward. And much of the second half of the argument is dominated by those concerns. We'll be right back. So, Adam, what happens in the second half of these arguments? Well, now it's the school board's chance to argue, represented by a lawyer named Alan Schoenfeld. Mr. Schoenfeld?

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Every day in public elementary school classrooms across the country, children are taught ideas that conflict with their family's religious beliefs. And he basically says, look, there's a lot of stuff in the world that's offensive to people with various kinds of beliefs, including religious ones. Children encounter real and fictional women

who forego motherhood and work outside the home. Children read books valorizing our nation's veterans who fought in violent wars. And children in Montgomery County read books introducing them to LGBT characters. Each of these things is deeply offensive to some people of faith. But just being exposed to ideas is not contrary to religion.

This court has made clear that exposure to offensive ideas does not burden free exercise. And he also says that there are practical problems here, that if you let this kind of lawsuit move forward, it's going to be very hard to figure out how that works in practice and that courts would hear... An infinite variety of curriculum challenges brought by parents with different religious beliefs. An infinite variety of objections to all sorts of things. I welcome the court's questions. And what questions do the justices have about that argument?

They travel much of the same territory they did in the first half. Mr. Schoenfeld, could I make sure I understand what you mean by coercion? They ask about the difference between exposure and coercion. That is certainly on our side of the line between exposure and coercion. The school's lawyer predictably says that these books are not coercive

and therefore not burdensome. Counsel, you said that nothing in the policy requires students to affirm what's being taught or what's being presented in the books. Is that a realistic concept when you're talking about a five-year-old? Chief Justice Roberts tries to pin down how much age is a factor. I mean, do you want to say you don't have to follow the teacher's instruction? You don't have to agree with the teacher? And even as the lawyer for the school board insists

that his client is not pushing any particular worldview... I think what's in the record is that the board wants to teach civility and respect for difference in the classroom. Several of the conservative justices seem pretty skeptical of that. Why is the Montgomery County Board of Education in this argument running away from what they clearly want to say? They have a view that they want to express on these subjects. And maybe it's a very good view, but they have a definite view,

and that's the whole point of this curriculum, is it not? I'm not running away from anything. Justice Alito says essentially, just own up to it. These books are meant to endorse certain values, and those are not values shared by people of all religious faiths. And they're being used in English language instruction at age three, some of them.

So Pride Puppy was the book that was used for the pre-kindergarten. Justice Gorsuch for instance seems to have read a book for pre-kindergarten named Pride Puppy quite closely. So the book is an alphabet primer, A is for something, B is for something and so on in each page and there are pictures of lots of things on those pages. That's the one where they are supposed to look for the leather and things and bondage things like that. It's not bondage, it's a woman and a leather. Sex worker, right? No.

No? That's not correct. No. Gosh, I read it. Drag queen and drag queen. Drag queen and drag queen. Correct. The leather that they're pointing to is a woman in a leather jacket. And one of the words is drag queen in the sense that...

And they're supposed to look for those. It is an option at the end of the book. Correct. Yeah. Okay. And he doesn't perfectly match up to what the book says, but he sure has the impression that there's something going terribly awry here. And what emerges from all of this is that it's kind of hard to find the line of what

crosses the line into being a violation of religious freedom. But one thing that seems pretty clear for several of the conservative justices is that whatever else you can say, these books for young children cross the line. Why is it so hard for them to define exactly what the line is? Well, the Supreme Court does two things. It decides individual disputes, but it also lays down general legal principles that will apply in all kinds of cases. And I think the court is having a hard time figuring out what the implications of a ruling for the parents here would be for other kinds of religious objections to say, and these

are real cases, books about wizards and giants, books about evolution and the Big Bang Theory, even books about children doing things that don't conform to traditional stereotypes of gender roles. Parents have objected to a book where one student, a girl, reads a recipe and another student, a boy, cooks the meal. So the court is a little concerned that it not come up with a rule that is going to complicate the lives of teachers and school administrators all across the country. Right, because basically if they allow the parents to prevail in this case, then maybe some other parent is going to say, I don't want my kid reading Harry Potter. I don't want my kid learning about Halloween. And it's all based on religious grounds. That's right.

But as complicated as finding the line may be for several of the justices, there's also this sense on the right side of the court. Well, the plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum. They're just saying, look, we want out. Why isn't that feasible? Particularly for Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, that this particular problem shouldn't be

that hard to solve. I'm not understanding why it's not feasible. They repeatedly say... What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this? Is this really so tough to let people opt out of these particular classes? Well, why is it not administrable? You have, they're able to opt out of the health class, right? And what does the school district lawyers say about that?

He says that it's harder than it looks. So again, I think what's in the record is that with respect to these books, as they were deployed in the classroom, there was high absenteeism in some schools. For example, dozens of students being opted out in… It's not so easy to find something else for the kid to do who's opted out of the class. Making arrangements for those students to have adequate space and supervision and alternative instruction I think is infeasible. But Justice Kavanaugh in particular thinks that this is fairly straightforward and that compromise is the best solution. I guess I'm just not understanding the whole

goal, I think, of some of our religion precedents is to look for the win-win. To look for the situation where you can the win-win, to look for the situation where you can respect the religious beliefs and accommodate the religious beliefs while the state or city or whatever it may be can pursue its goals. And here, they're not asking you to change what's taught in the classroom. And that idea seems to have the support of a majority of the justices. And this is in keeping with really countless cases from the Roberts Court, which has been in business for two decades now, and has ruled in favor of religious groups and religious individuals and religious claims

at a higher rate than any court in modern history. And just to remind you of a couple of them, a web designer who didn't want to create websites for same-sex marriages won. I remember that one. High school football coach who wanted to pray on the 50 yard line after his games won. It's really been an extraordinary winning streak for religion, and it seems like it will continue here. SONIA DARA, MD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, PhD, as I expect it will, it will give religion a major role in shaping

American public education. It will mean that teachers, principals, and public schools everywhere will have to consider at least the possibility of these kinds of objections when they're putting together a curriculum. And the materials they choose that may be objectionable to some religious parents will come at a cost. They'll have to create a structure around those materials to let kids opt out of being exposed to them. Which seems extremely arduous just to note. It's sure a lot easier just to say let's skip it.

Let's use other books. Let's not use books that are going to provoke a reaction. And maybe that's the right attitude, maybe it's the wrong attitude, but it's certainly going to make for changes. And if, as the school's lawyer said at the argument, the opt-out policies are too hard to implement, the bottom line is that these materials may not be taught at all. And it might be easier to stick to books like Jack and Jill or Sleeping Beauty and forget about Uncle Bobby's wedding.

Well, Adam, thank you very much. Thank you, Rachel. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Russia killed at least 12 people and injured 90 others in a huge attack on Kiev early Thursday, prompting President Trump to issue a rare public critique of Moscow. Vladimir, stop, Mr. Trump posted on Truth Social, saying that he was, quote, not happy with the Russian strikes.

Not necessary and very bad timing, the post added. And a federal judge in New Hampshire on Thursday limited the ability of the Trump administration to withhold federal funds from public schools that have certain kinds of diversity and equity initiatives. The judge said that the administration had not adequately defined diversity, equity, and inclusion, and that its actions threaten to restrict free speech in the classroom while also overstepping federal authority over local schools.

The decision followed a demand earlier this month by the administration that all 50 state education agencies attest that their schools do not use DEI practices that violate President Trump's interpretation of civil rights law. Today's episode was produced by Will Reid, Anna Foley, and Eric Krupke. It was edited by Devin Taylor and contains original music by Dan Powell, engineered by Chris Wood with theme music by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly. That's it for the daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you Monday.