Children’s Books Go Before the Supreme Court

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Daily – "Children’s Books Go Before the Supreme Court"

Introduction

In the April 25, 2025 episode of The Daily by The New York Times, host Michael Barbaro delves into a pivotal Supreme Court case that examines the intersection of religious freedom and public education. Titled "Children’s Books Go Before the Supreme Court," the episode explores how a seemingly ordinary dispute over children's picture books has escalated into a national legal battle with far-reaching implications for schools across the United States.

Background of the Case

The case originates from Montgomery County, Maryland, a predominantly liberal suburb of Washington, D.C. In 2022, the local public schools incorporated seven new picture books into the curriculum for Pre-K through 5th grade. These books, including titles like Pride Puppy and Uncle Bobby's Wedding, feature LGBTQ characters and themes. Initially, parents with religious objections were notified in advance of the days these books would be discussed, allowing them to opt their children out of those specific classes. However, after a year, the school board discontinued the opt-out notices, citing administrative difficulties and concerns about stigmatizing children from LGBTQ families.

Parents' Arguments

A coalition of parents from various faith backgrounds, including Muslim, Catholic, and Protestant, filed a lawsuit against the Montgomery County Public Schools. They argue that the mandatory inclusion and discussion of these books amount to religious indoctrination, violating their First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion. According to the parents, these books conflict with their religious beliefs by normalizing same-sex marriage and gender identity concepts, which they deem inappropriate for their children's age and contrary to their faith-based values.

Notable Quote:

Justice Samuel Alito (00:08:03): "Parents everywhere care about how their young children are taught sexuality and gender identity. 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."
(Timestamp: 08:03)

School Board's Argument

Representing the school board, attorney Alan Schoenfeld contends that the curriculum is designed to promote respect, kindness, and an understanding of diverse family structures. He emphasizes that exposure to a variety of ideas is fundamental to education and that allowing religious objections to dictate curriculum content would create unmanageable precedent, leading to an endless stream of challenges based on diverse and sometimes conflicting beliefs.

Notable Quote:

Alan Schoenfeld (22:02): "Every day in public elementary school classrooms across the country, children are taught ideas that conflict with their family's religious beliefs."
(Timestamp: 22:02)

Supreme Court Oral Arguments

During the oral arguments, Justices engaged in a robust debate over whether the mandatory reading of these books constitutes mere exposure or coercion. The distinction hinges on whether children are simply exposed to ideas or if they are being indoctrinated into specific beliefs, thereby infringing on parental rights to religious freedom.

Notable Exchanges:

• Justice Clarence Thomas (09:38): Questions whether the presence of these books is merely exposure or if they are actively being taught, thereby increasing the risk of coercion.
  (Timestamp: 09:38)

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (15:17): Highlights the challenge of defining where the line is drawn between acceptable exposure and unconstitutional coercion, using examples like teachers displaying wedding photos or student groups putting up "Love is Love" posters.
  (Timestamp: 15:17)

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor (18:03): Explores the broader implications of the ruling, questioning how it would affect various aspects of school life beyond the current case.
  (Timestamp: 18:03)

Key Legal Considerations

The Justices grappled with applying the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the case at hand. They considered whether the school's actions impose a substantial burden on the parents' ability to direct their children's religious upbringing. The court must balance this burden against the school's interest in providing a comprehensive and inclusive education.

Notable Quote:

Justice Samuel Alito (20:29): "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."
(Timestamp: 20:29)

Potential Implications

A ruling in favor of the parents could set a precedent allowing parents to challenge various elements of the public school curriculum on religious grounds. This could lead to significant administrative challenges for school districts nationwide, including the need to navigate an "infinite variety of objections" based on differing religious beliefs.

Conversely, a decision supporting the school board would reinforce the principle that public education must remain secular and inclusive, limiting the scope for religious objections to curricular content.

Notable Quote:

Adam Liptak (30:16): "If the court rules, as I expect it will, it will give religion a major role in shaping American public education."
(Timestamp: 30:16)

Conclusion

The Daily episode underscores the complexity of balancing religious freedoms with the objectives of public education in a diverse society. As the Supreme Court deliberates on this case, the outcome will likely influence not only the future of curriculum design but also the broader dialogue on religious rights and secular education in America.

Closing Remarks

Ultimately, the episode highlights the ongoing cultural and legal debates that shape the American education system, reflecting the nation's struggle to reconcile differing values within the public sphere.

Transcript

[Rachel Abrams]

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 Liptak 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.

[Adam Liptak]

Seems that way.

[Rachel Abrams]

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.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Rachel Abrams]

So tell us about that case.

[Adam Liptak]

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 5th 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.

[Rachel Abrams]

And so what happened after that?

[Adam Liptak]

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 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.

[Rachel Abrams]

Maybe this is really obvious, but can you just explain a little bit more? What specifically do the parents object to in these books?

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Rachel Abrams]

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?

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Rachel Abrams]

Well, let's talk about the actual books. What are they about?

[Adam Liptak]

Well, Rachel, I happen to have a couple of the books, and let me give you a tour of one of them.

[Rachel Abrams]

Amazing. Please.

[Adam Liptak]

Uncle Bobby's Wedding.

[Rachel Abrams]

Okay.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Rachel Abrams]

Great.

[Adam Liptak]

Mummy, said Chloe, I don't understand. Why is Uncle Bobby getting married? Bobby and Jamie love each other, said Mummy. 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, said 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.

[Rachel Abrams]

Okay, so that sounds like it's either a cute story about a girl and her uncle, where the. 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.

[Adam Liptak]

Yeah, that's right.

[Rachel Abrams]

So these books have obviously now found themselves in front of the Supreme Court. Take me to the oral arguments on Tuesday. How did they start?

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

We will hear argument first this morning in case 24297, Mahmoud versus Taylor.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

Mr. Baxter, Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court.

[Adam Liptak]

They start with a lawyer for the parents, Eric Baxter.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

Parents everywhere care about how their young children are taught sexuality and gender identity.

[Adam Liptak]

Saying basically, we're not asking for much.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

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.

[Adam Liptak]

These books are at odds 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.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

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.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters. I welcome the court's questions, but for.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

Could you spend a minute or two to explain how the. Why the record shows that the children are more than merely exposed to these sorts of things in the storybooks?

[Justice Samuel Alito]

Yes, your honor, I would start with the.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Rachel Abrams]

And just explain that distinction.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

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?

[Rachel Abrams]

So what does the lawyer for the parents say about this distinction? How are they viewing this?

[Adam Liptak]

The lawyer for the parents repeatedly makes the point that this is not about books being available to kids.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

No, we know that the. The teachers are required to use the books when the books were first introduced.

[Adam Liptak]

This is about books being required to be read in class and discussed.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

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.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Rachel Abrams]

Right. Basically, the actual reading to the child, the fact that that is more active is sort of the distinction here.

[Adam Liptak]

Yeah.

[Rachel Abrams]

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?

[Adam Liptak]

Well, what they say is that the books are meant to teach respect and kindness and to introduce kids to the idea that there are 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.

[Rachel Abrams]

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?

[Adam Liptak]

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, is going to be as a result of this, you know, shooting up the bestseller lists, I imagine.

[Rachel Abrams]

Watch out, Hungry Caterpillar, Good Night, Goodnight Moon.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

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?

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

To Uncle Bobby's wedding. I've read that book as well as a lot of these other books.

[Adam Liptak]

I've read this book.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

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.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

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.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

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.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

Again, it would be, you know, courts would be engaged in religious discrimination.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

I'm asking you to answer my question. It wasn't that she was objecting to gay marriage qua gay marriage, period. She was objecting to having her uncle's time taken by someone else.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

I'm not sure that's correct, you, Honor. I think for a child of that age, it's hard to express what their actual concerns are.

[Adam Liptak]

Well, so we sort of have a book club going on at the Supreme Court with varying interpretations of Uncle Bobby's wedding.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

Justice Sotomayor and I were discussing this before, and we could have a, you know, we could have a book club.

[Adam Liptak]

And Justice Alito himself calls it this.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

And have a debate about how Uncle Bobby's marriage should be understood.

[Adam Liptak]

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?

[Rachel Abrams]

Yeah, exactly. This is not the Talmud. Like the idea that the Supreme Court justices are arguing over the meaning of, of a book for children this small is just, it's really kind of incredible.

[Adam Liptak]

Right.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

Justice Alito.

[Adam Liptak]

And Justice Alito follows up on that point.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

What are the ages of the children who are involved here?

[Adam Liptak]

He asks how old are the children reading these books? And the lawyer for the parents says.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

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.

[Adam Liptak]

Fall, they're quite young.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

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 that certain things are wrong isn't necessarily going to be correct on everything. It is possible for me to disagree.

[Adam Liptak]

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 pushback 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.

[Rachel Abrams]

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.

[Adam Liptak]

Yeah, that's right. So far as it goes, Rachel. But Justice Jackson, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushes back on the idea.

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

Let me ask you another series of questions because I'm just trying to understand the implications.

[Adam Liptak]

And she said it's actually not that easy.

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

Is your argument actually confined to the content of the school's curriculum?

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

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?

[Adam Liptak]

What if you have a gay teacher who puts out a wedding picture on her desk and talks about her wedding? Is that coercion?

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

What about the teacher showing pictures from the wedding?

[Justice Samuel Alito]

Here the board is imposing indoctrination on children, violates.

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

What if a student group puts up love is love posters around the school featuring same sex couples or trans youth?

[Adam Liptak]

What about having a trans kid in the class or a trans teacher? Or posters celebrating gay rights?

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

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?

[Rachel Abrams]

Like where does it end?

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

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.

[Adam Liptak]

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 to pick and choose from a public schools curriculum.

[Rachel Abrams]

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 school schools would basically find unmanageable.

[Adam Liptak]

He has two responses.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

Again, we don't think that any child has the right to dictate what the.

[Adam Liptak]

School does or what 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.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

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.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

The strict scrutiny analysis would favor the board in that situation because it would be impossible for the board to have to satisfy every student's needs about what's on the board.

[Adam Liptak]

And the PAR would not always win.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

Thank you, counsel.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Rachel Abrams]

We'll be right back. So, Adam, what happens in the second half of these arguments?

[Adam Liptak]

Well, now it's the school board's chance to argue, represented by a lawyer named Alan Schoenfeld.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

Mr. Schoenfeld.

[Alan 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.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Alan Schoenfeld]

Children encounter real and fictional women who forgo 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.

[Adam Liptak]

But just being exposed to ideas is not contrary to religion.

[Alan Schoenfeld]

This Court has made clear that exposure to offensive ideas does not burden free exercise.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Alan Schoenfeld]

Variety of curriculum challenges brought by parents.

[Adam Liptak]

With different religious beliefs, an infinite variety of objections to all sorts of things.

[Alan Schoenfeld]

I welcome the Court's questions.

[Rachel Abrams]

And what questions do the Justices have about that argument?

[Adam Liptak]

They travel much of the same territory they did in the first half.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

Mr. Schumfeld, could I make sure I understand what you mean by coercion?

[Adam Liptak]

They ask about the difference between exposure and coercion.

[Alan Schoenfeld]

That is certainly on our side of the line between exposure and coercion.

[Adam Liptak]

The school's lawyer predictably says that these books are not coercive and therefore not burdensome.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

Councillor, 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?

[Adam Liptak]

Chief Justice Roberts tries to pin down how much age is a factor.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

I mean, do you want to say you don't have to follow the teacher's instructions? You don't have to agree with the teacher, teacher?

[Adam Liptak]

And even as the lawyer for the school board insists that his client is not pushing any particular worldview, I think.

[Alan Schoenfeld]

What'S in the record is that the board wants to teach civility and respect for Difference in the classroom.

[Adam Liptak]

Several of the conservative justices seem pretty skeptical of that.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

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, 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?

[Alan Schoenfeld]

I'm not running away from anything the board has.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

And they're being used in English language instruction at age three, some of them.

[Alan Schoenfeld]

So Pride Puppy was the book that was used for the pre kindergarten.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

That's the one where they are supposed to look for the leather and things and bondage, things like that.

[Alan Schoenfeld]

It's not bondage. It's a woman and a leather sex work worker, right?

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

No.

[Alan Schoenfeld]

No, that's not correct. No.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

Gosh, I read it. Drag queen and drag queen.

[Adam Liptak]

Correct.

[Alan Schoenfeld]

The leather that they're pointing to is a woman in a leather jacket. And one of the words is drag queen in the search.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

And they're supposed to look for those.

[Alan Schoenfeld]

It is an option at the end of the book, correct?

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

Yeah. Okay.

[Adam Liptak]

And he doesn't perfectly match up to what the book says, but he sure has the impression that there's something gone 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.

[Rachel Abrams]

Why is it so hard for them to define exactly what the line is?

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Rachel Abrams]

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.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

Well, the plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum. They're just saying, look, we want out.

[Adam Liptak]

Why isn't that feasible, particularly for Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, that this particular problem shouldn't be that hard to solve?

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

I'm not understanding why it's not feasible.

[Adam Liptak]

They repeatedly say, what is the big.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

Deal about allowing them to opt out of this?

[Adam Liptak]

Is this really so tough to let people opt out of these particular classes?

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

Why is it not administrable? You have, they're able to opt out of the health class. Right.

[Rachel Abrams]

And what does the school district lawyer say about that?

[Adam Liptak]

He says that it's harder than it looks.

[Alan Schoenfeld]

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.

[Adam Liptak]

It's not so easy to find something else for the kid to do who's opted out of the class.

[Alan Schoenfeld]

Making arrangements for those students to have adequate space and supervision and alternative instruction, I think is infeasible.

[Adam Liptak]

But Justice Kavanaugh in particular thinks that this is fairly straightforward and that compromise is the best solution.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

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 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 to change what's taught in the classroom.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Rachel Abrams]

I remember that one.

[Adam Liptak]

A high school football coach who wanted to prey 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.

[Rachel Abrams]

If the court finds the way that you suggest they will find in this case, what do you think that that will actually mean for American education?

[Adam Liptak]

Well, if the court rules, 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.

[Rachel Abrams]

Just to note.

[Adam Liptak]

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.

[Rachel Abrams]

Well, Adam, thank you very much.

[Adam Liptak]

Thank you, Rachel.

[Rachel Abrams]

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 threatened 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 Reed, 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.