0:00

brings global payroll, HR, IT,

0:02

and compliance into one

0:04

platform. No barriers, no

0:06

hassle. Join over 35 ,000

0:08

companies that trust Deal to hire,

0:10

pay, and support teams worldwide. To

0:13

learn more, visit deal.com

0:15

slash nyt. That's D -E -L

0:18

dot com slash nyt. Deal.

0:21

You are a forever people platform. From

0:25

The New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams,

0:27

and this is The Daily. On

0:38

Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard

0:40

a case that could hand parents with religious

0:42

objections a lot more control over what their kids

0:44

learn in the classroom. Or,

0:46

more specifically, what they don't

0:48

learn. Today, my

0:50

colleague Adam Liptec explains how a

0:53

case about children's picture books with

0:55

titles like Pride Puppy and Uncle

0:57

Bobby's Wedding has broad implications for

0:59

schools across the country. It's

1:12

Friday, April

1:14

25th.

1:18

Adam, welcome back to the show. I feel

1:20

like we're talking pretty frequently these days. Seems

1:23

that way. So we have had

1:25

you on the show a lot recently

1:27

talking about the growing constitutional crisis that

1:29

is happening under the Trump administration in

1:31

this country. But I just

1:33

want to acknowledge that that is not what

1:36

we are going to talk about today,

1:38

because today we are going to talk about

1:40

what feels like a very normal, very

1:42

interesting Supreme Court case that has some pretty

1:44

big implications. Right. Obviously,

1:47

we have a constitutional crisis

1:49

or a series of them. hanging

1:52

like a cloud over the

1:54

court. But the Roberts Court

1:56

is still in business,

1:58

still hearing major cases on

2:00

culture wars issues. And

2:02

on Tuesday, they heard a good one.

2:04

So tell us about that case. The

2:07

case arose from the

2:10

curriculum of Montgomery County,

2:12

Maryland public schools. Montgomery

2:14

County is a quite

2:16

liberal suburb of Washington,

2:18

DC. And in 2022,

2:21

along with all the other story books

2:23

that kids in pre -K through fifth

2:25

grade read, they added

2:27

initially seven new books

2:29

that included gay and

2:31

trans characters and themes. And

2:34

when they first introduced these new books, they

2:37

gave parents with religious objections

2:39

notice that on a certain day,

2:41

the books would be discussed

2:43

in class. And if you wanted

2:45

to take your kids out

2:47

of class, if you wanted to

2:50

opt out, You could and

2:52

a number of parents did and

2:54

that system went on for

2:56

about a year According to the

2:58

school board. It wasn't working

3:00

It was hard to administer you

3:03

had to figure out where

3:05

to put the kids it seemed

3:07

to be leading to absenteeism

3:09

all day and They said also

3:11

that it stigmatized kids from

3:13

Families with gay and trans members

3:16

who were confused about why

3:18

discussion of books reflecting their lives

3:20

was so provocative that other

3:22

kids had to be withdrawn from

3:24

school. So on that reasoning, the

3:26

school said, we're not going to give notice

3:28

anymore. We're not going to let you

3:30

opt out. If you want to

3:33

go to public school, you will

3:35

have the whole curriculum, including these

3:37

books. And so what happened after that?

3:39

So parents of many faiths were

3:41

quite upset and they sued. They

3:44

said, We're not asking you to take

3:46

these books out of the library. We're

3:49

not even asking you to take these books out of

3:51

the classroom. We just want to go

3:53

back to the system where on days

3:55

these books are going to be discussed, you

3:58

tell us and you give us the option

4:00

to take our kids out of class. Maybe

4:02

this is really obvious, but can you

4:04

just explain a little bit more what specifically

4:07

do the parents object to in these

4:09

books? The parents say that

4:11

these books are kind of indoctrination. that

4:14

in depicting families with

4:16

gay members, with trans

4:18

members, in talking about

4:20

same -sex marriage, in

4:22

talking about preferred

4:24

pronouns, the

4:26

books tackle subjects that the

4:29

parents say are not only

4:31

age and appropriate, but it

4:33

odds with their ability to

4:35

exercise the religious freedom guaranteed

4:37

to them by the Constitution.

4:39

So I just want to

4:41

make sure I understand this.

4:43

The parent's objection is essentially

4:46

that the message in these

4:48

books condones LGBTQ characters and

4:50

living openly as LGBTQ people.

4:53

And because that objection is

4:55

grounded in their religious observance, that's

4:57

why their rights are being

4:59

violated. Is that it? Yeah,

5:01

that's right. So these parents,

5:04

and there are many faiths,

5:06

Muslim, Catholic, Protestant,

5:09

other, say that

5:11

their faiths don't acknowledge

5:13

same -sex marriage, for

5:15

instance, and that

5:17

having their children exposed to

5:19

these ideas puts a burden

5:21

on their constitutional right guaranteed

5:24

by the Free Exercise Clause

5:26

of the First Amendment to

5:28

raise their kids as they

5:30

wish without hearing things in

5:32

a public school mandated by

5:34

the government at odds with

5:36

what they believe to be

5:39

appropriate. Well, let's talk about

5:41

the actual books. What are they

5:43

about? Well, Rachel, I happen

5:45

to have a couple of the books. And

5:47

let me give you a tour

5:49

of one of them. Amazing, please. Uncle

5:52

Bobby's wedding. Okay. It's a

5:54

storybook for young kids. It's

5:56

full of colorful pictures. And

5:59

the theme of the book

6:01

is that a young girl

6:03

named Chloe has a favorite

6:05

uncle, Bobby. who's

6:07

getting married to another man, Jamie.

6:12

And she's unhappy about this.

6:15

I'm going to pick up in the middle of the book, read

6:17

you a little bit of it just to give you the flavor.

6:19

Great. Mummy

6:24

said, Chloe, I don't understand.

6:27

Why is Uncle Bobby getting married? Bobby

6:31

and Jamie love each other, said Mummy. When

6:34

grown -up people love each other that

6:36

much, sometimes they get married. But,

6:39

said Chloe, Bobby

6:41

is my special uncle. I don't

6:43

want him to get married. I

6:45

think you should talk to him, said Mummy. Chloe

6:49

found Uncle Bobby sitting on a

6:51

swing. Why do you have

6:53

to get married? She asked. Jamie

6:56

and I want to live together and have

6:58

our own family, said Bobby. You

7:00

want kids? Only if

7:02

they're just like you, said Bobby. And

7:12

it goes on. Chloe

7:15

becomes more cheerful. She

7:17

actually saves the day near the

7:20

end of the book when a wedding

7:22

ring goes missing and she finds

7:24

it and the wedding goes off without

7:26

a hitch and everyone is happy. Okay,

7:39

so that sounds like it's either

7:41

a cute story about a girl

7:43

and her uncle, where the fact

7:45

that he's marrying another man is

7:47

sort of incidental to the story

7:49

itself, or to the parents who

7:51

are objecting to these books. It

7:53

sounds like they are reading this

7:55

as an overt message of support

7:57

of a gay marriage and therefore

7:59

something that they feel should not

8:01

be anywhere near a classroom. Yeah,

8:03

that's right. So These

8:05

books have obviously now found themselves

8:07

in front of the Supreme Court.

8:10

Take me to the oral arguments

8:12

on Tuesday. How did they start?

8:14

We will hear argument first this

8:16

morning in case 24297 Mahmood v.

8:18

Taylor. Mr. Baxter? Mr.

8:20

Chief Justice, and may it

8:23

please the court. They start with

8:25

a lawyer for the parents,

8:27

Eric Baxter. Parents everywhere care about

8:29

how their young children are

8:31

taught sexuality and gender identity. Saying

8:33

basically, We're not asking for

8:35

much. Forcing petitioners to submit their

8:37

children to such instruction violates their religious

8:40

beliefs and directly interferes with their ability

8:42

to direct the religious upbringing of their

8:44

children. These books are ours with

8:46

our faith. All we want

8:48

to do is take our kids out

8:50

of class when they're discussed. And

8:52

the alternative, he

8:54

says, is really

8:57

difficult for parents because their

8:59

alternative is to withdraw

9:01

their kids from public school. One

9:03

family moved in with grandparents to

9:05

afford private school. Another is homeschooling

9:07

at the loss of $25 ,000 a

9:09

year in special services. The

9:11

school provided their daughter with Down syndrome. Most

9:14

have no alternatives. Which may not

9:16

be possible for some people. So

9:19

he's sort of saying, let's weigh

9:21

the equities here. Let's sort of

9:23

balance out what the cost and

9:25

the benefit is here and he

9:27

says it's a small ask. Parents

9:29

not school boards should have the

9:31

final say on such religious matters.

9:34

I welcome the court's questions. But

9:36

for the justices to decide this question

9:38

they have to think about a threshold

9:40

question. Is the

9:42

mere exposure of kids to

9:44

ideas like this a

9:46

burden on religion? And

9:49

it's not obvious that it

9:51

is. And so right away

9:53

Justice Clarence Thomas dives into

9:55

this question about whether schools

9:58

are burdening the religious freedom

10:00

of parents. Could

10:02

you spend a minute

10:04

or two to

10:06

explain why the record

10:09

shows that the

10:11

children are more than

10:13

merely exposed to

10:15

these sorts of things

10:17

in the storybooks? Yes,

10:20

Your Honor. I will start with the... And

10:22

he focuses on a distinction that's a little legalistic,

10:24

but it's really at the heart of what

10:26

we're talking about. And that's the

10:29

question of a distinction between

10:31

exposure on the one hand

10:33

and coercion on the other.

10:35

And just explain that distinction. Well,

10:38

exposure is something that happens

10:40

to all of us every day.

10:42

We read things, see things, apply

10:45

critical analysis to them.

10:47

just because we've heard it doesn't mean

10:49

we believe it. Coercion

10:52

is kind of indoctrination,

10:54

is kind of forcing someone

10:56

to say or believe

10:58

something. And

11:00

the question for the court

11:02

is, does that interfere with

11:04

the parental right at home

11:07

to raise kids in their

11:09

faith to the extent that

11:11

we've moved from mere exposure

11:13

to something much more significant,

11:15

coercion? What I'm talking about

11:17

is not necessarily what the

11:20

books say, but rather is

11:22

that are the books just

11:24

there and no more? Or

11:26

are they actually being taught

11:28

out of the books? So

11:30

what does the lawyer for the parents say

11:33

about this distinction? How are they viewing this?

11:35

The lawyer for the parents repeatedly

11:38

makes the point that this

11:40

is not about books being available

11:42

to kids. teachers

11:45

are required to use the books

11:47

when the books were first introduced.

11:50

This is about books being required

11:52

to be read in class and

11:54

discussed. One of the schools,

11:56

the Sherwood School in June for Pride

11:58

Month, said that they were going to

12:00

read one book each day to celebrate

12:02

Pride Month. So that, he says, makes

12:05

it much more likely to be coercive

12:07

than something sitting on a shelf that

12:09

a child may read him or herself.

12:11

Right, basically the actual reading to the

12:13

child, the fact that that is more

12:15

active is sort of the distinction here.

12:17

Yeah. Can I just ask, why

12:19

does the school require these books to be read

12:21

to begin with? Like, why are they actually part

12:23

of the curriculum? Well, what

12:26

they say is that the

12:28

books are meant to teach respect

12:30

and kindness and to introduce

12:32

kids to the idea that they're

12:34

all sorts of different people

12:36

from all sorts of different kinds

12:38

of families. to

12:40

reinforce the idea that

12:43

it's important to respect people's

12:45

differences. Got it. So the

12:47

kids are actively reading these books or

12:49

they're being read to them. How do

12:51

the justices determine whether the contents of

12:53

the books themselves actually qualify as coercive

12:55

to the kids? Well, they do it

12:57

in what may be the most obvious

13:00

way. Justice Sotomayor jumps

13:02

in and says, let's talk about the

13:04

actual books. Let's talk about

13:06

Uncle Bobby's wedding. My new favorite book.

13:08

Uncle Bobby's wedding is going to be

13:10

as a result of this, you know,

13:12

shooting up the best -seller list, I

13:14

imagine. Watch out, hunger caterpillar. Good

13:17

night, good night, Moon. And

13:20

she says... Because I'm looking at the

13:22

books, I've looked through all of them.

13:24

They have two

13:26

men, little Bob's, Bobby's

13:29

wedding, where they're getting married.

13:31

One is black and one is

13:33

white in this rendition of

13:35

the book. is looking at two

13:37

men getting married, is that

13:39

the religious objection? Listen, this is

13:41

just a story about a

13:43

couple who love each other and

13:45

get married, and what's the

13:47

problem here? And Justice

13:49

Alito jumps in and says, wait

13:51

a second. To Uncle Bobby's wedding.

13:53

I've read that book as well

13:55

as a lot of these other

13:57

books. I've read this book. Yeah,

14:00

the book has a clear message.

14:02

And a lot of people think it's

14:04

a good message, and maybe it is

14:06

a good message, but it's a message

14:09

that a lot of people who hold

14:11

on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree

14:13

with. And it not only features same -sex

14:15

marriage, which some people think is a

14:17

good idea, but some people with religious

14:19

objections think is a bad idea, but

14:22

it also endorses it. Uncle

14:24

Bobby gets married to his

14:26

boyfriend Jamie and everybody's happy

14:28

and everything is you know

14:30

it portrays this Everyone accepts

14:33

this except for the little

14:35

girl Chloe who has reservations

14:37

about it But her mother

14:39

corrects her no you shouldn't

14:41

have any reservations about this

14:43

because little Chloe Has an

14:46

objection to same -sex marriage

14:48

and her mother Disagrees with

14:50

her and tells her it's

14:52

fine Justice Sotomayor says

14:54

a misreading of Uncle Bobby's wedding.

14:56

Council, a couple of questions

14:59

to clarify things. Uncle Bob's wedding,

15:01

the child character, wasn't objecting

15:03

to same -sex marriage. She was

15:05

objecting to the fact that marriage

15:07

would take her uncle away

15:10

from spending more time with her,

15:12

correct? Again, courts would be

15:14

engaged in religious discrimination. I'm asking

15:16

you to answer my question.

15:18

It wasn't that she was objecting

15:20

to gay marriage, qua gay

15:23

marriage, period. She was objecting to

15:25

having her uncle's time taken by someone else.

15:27

I'm not sure that's correct, Your Honor. I

15:29

think for a child of that age, it's

15:31

hard to express what their actual concerns are.

15:34

So we sort of have a

15:36

book club going on at the

15:38

Supreme Court with varying interpretations of

15:40

Uncle Bobby's wedding. I'm Justice Sotomayor

15:42

and I were discussing this before

15:44

and we could have a, you

15:46

know, we could have a book

15:48

club. And Justice Alito himself calls

15:50

it this. And have a debate

15:53

about how Uncle Bobby's marriage should

15:55

be understood. But I think it

15:57

also tells you something about the

15:59

Supreme Court that they managed to

16:01

read it differently. And it's

16:03

one thing if you read a statute

16:05

differently, but you would think that there could

16:07

be consensus on the meaning of a

16:09

children's book. Yeah, exactly. This is not the

16:11

Talmud. Like the idea that the Supreme

16:13

Court justices are arguing over the meaning of

16:15

a book for children this small is

16:17

just, it's really kind of incredible. Right.

16:20

Justice Alito? And

16:22

Justice Alito follows up on that

16:24

point. What are the ages of

16:26

the children who are involved here?

16:29

He asks, how old are the

16:31

children reading these books? And

16:33

the lawyer for the parents

16:35

says... These books were approved for

16:37

pre -K, which in Montgomery County

16:40

can start as early as

16:42

three if they're going to turn

16:44

four that fall. They're quite

16:46

young. Now, would you agree that

16:48

at a certain age, students

16:50

are capable of understanding this point,

16:52

which probably is not a

16:54

point that can be understood by

16:56

a four or five -year -old.

16:58

And that is that my teacher...

17:00

was generally telling me that

17:02

certain things are right and that

17:04

certain things are wrong isn't

17:06

necessarily going to be correct on

17:09

everything. It is possible for

17:11

me to disagree. And Alito

17:13

says essentially, shouldn't age be

17:15

a factor here? And

17:17

I guess there's a logic to that

17:19

position. I mean, assuming

17:21

you accept that the books are

17:23

pushing a vision of family

17:26

life at odds with what religious

17:28

parents want to have their

17:30

children see and read. It's

17:32

probably true that a young

17:35

child, more impressionable, less likely

17:37

to use critical thought and

17:39

push back on what a

17:41

teacher is reading to him

17:43

or her, is more

17:45

likely to be, whatever coercion

17:47

means, coerced than an older kid

17:49

who might read a book and

17:51

apply critical faculties to it and accept

17:53

it or not and kind of

17:55

reason with it, debate with it. So

17:58

it may be that exposure

18:00

is more likely to be

18:02

the apt word for a

18:04

teenager, while coercion would fit

18:06

more neatly when we're talking

18:08

about a very young child.

18:11

So in other words, Alito is saying

18:13

that basically exposure is coercion for little

18:15

kids. Like when they're that young, you

18:17

can't really distinguish. Yeah,

18:19

that's right. So far as it goes,

18:21

Rachel, but Justice Jackson, Justice Katanji Brown

18:23

Jackson. pushes back on the idea. Let

18:25

me ask you another series of questions

18:28

because I'm just trying to understand the

18:30

implications. And she said it's actually not

18:32

that easy. Is your

18:34

argument actually confined to the

18:36

content of the school's curriculum?

18:38

Even in school, you're exposed

18:40

to all kinds of ideas,

18:42

not just in the books

18:44

you're reading, and she brings

18:46

up some examples. What if we have

18:48

a teacher? who is gay

18:50

and has a photo of a wedding on

18:52

her desk, is a parent

18:54

able or could they opt out

18:57

of having their student be in

18:59

that classroom? What if you have

19:01

a gay teacher who puts out

19:03

a wedding picture on her desk

19:05

and talks about her wedding? Is

19:08

that coercion? What about the

19:10

teacher? showing pictures from

19:12

the wedding. Here the board is

19:14

imposing indoctrination on children. What if

19:16

a student group puts up love

19:18

is love posters around the school

19:20

featuring same -sex couples or trans youth?

19:22

What about having a trans kid

19:24

in the class or a trans

19:26

teacher or posters celebrating gay rights?

19:28

What about your principal says that

19:30

a religious parent shouldn't be able

19:32

to say, I don't want my

19:34

kid walking in that part of

19:36

the school? Like where does it

19:38

end? Exactly. We live in the

19:40

world even if we're young children.

19:43

We see what we see, we learn what we learn

19:45

and we go home and our parents can explain

19:47

it to us. So this

19:49

is not just about books.

19:52

This is about exposure to

19:54

people of different sexual orientations

19:56

and the objection, the sincerely

19:58

held objection that children shouldn't

20:00

be exposed to this. Justice

20:02

Jackson certainly seems to think that

20:05

this is not a case

20:07

where you give parents veto

20:09

power over what their children

20:11

learn in school and to

20:13

pick and choose from a

20:16

public school's curriculum. So

20:18

how does the lawyer for the parents

20:20

respond to this idea that basically this

20:22

case would open up the floodgates to

20:24

a bunch of objections that schools would

20:26

basically find unmanageable? He

20:28

has two responses again. We don't

20:30

think that any child has the right

20:32

to dictate what the school does

20:34

or what one is Practical that opt

20:36

-outs are allowed in a lot of

20:39

the country and they're not much

20:41

used and it hasn't been a real

20:43

problem The other though is that

20:45

he says yes as a religious matter

20:47

if you ever sincerely held religious

20:49

belief You can object to many things.

20:51

We've never said that there's an

20:53

independent right to be noted for schools

20:55

to anticipate what parents might object

20:58

to, but when parents know something, there

21:00

could be a sincere religious burden.

21:02

And the teaching of those things to

21:04

your children in public school does

21:06

burden your religious rights. He

21:08

acknowledges that that's not the

21:10

end of the inquiry after you've...

21:12

Found a burden you still

21:14

apply a kind of balancing test

21:16

the strict scrutiny analysis would

21:18

favor the board in that situation

21:20

because it would be impossible

21:22

for the board to have to

21:24

satisfy every student's needs about

21:27

what's on the board and the

21:29

parents Would not always win.

21:31

Thank you counsel But that second

21:33

answer Sure suggests that if

21:35

the court rules in favor of

21:37

the parents there will be

21:39

some very difficult issues

21:41

about how to manage public

21:43

schools in the face

21:45

of religious objections going forward

21:47

and much of the

21:49

second half of the argument

21:51

is dominated by those

21:53

concerns. We'll

21:58

be right back. Hi,

22:14

you're a regular listener of The Daily.

22:16

You like knowing what's going on in the

22:18

world. Well, you could know way more

22:21

if you subscribe to The New York Times.

22:23

I'm Michael Simon Johnson. I'm one of the

22:25

producers that makes The Daily. What we can

22:27

cover on the show is really just a

22:30

sliver of the incredible reporting that's being published

22:32

every day in The New York Times. Unexpected,

22:34

insightful articles you might never otherwise

22:36

come across. For me, that's this

22:38

piece about how states legally classify

22:41

butterflies. It has to do with

22:43

whether considered wildlife. It's

22:45

hard to explain, but it's fascinating, and

22:47

you should just read it. The Times

22:49

obviously delivers the vital, essential news of

22:51

the day, much of which we cover

22:53

on the daily, but there is so

22:55

much beyond that to explore. And yes,

22:57

you support all of this journalism when

22:59

you become a subscriber to The New

23:01

York Times, but you also get to

23:03

experience it. You get your curiosity fed.

23:06

You get to know cool stuff and

23:08

you get to be informed about what's

23:10

going on in the world. You can

23:12

subscribe at nytimes.com slash subscribe. So

23:16

Adam, what happens in the second half

23:18

of these arguments? Well, now

23:20

it's the school board's chance

23:22

to argue represented by a lawyer

23:24

named Alan Schoenfeld. Mr. Schoenfeld.

23:27

Mr. Chief Justice and made please

23:29

the court. Every day

23:31

in public elementary school classrooms across the

23:33

country, children are taught ideas that conflict

23:35

with their family's religious beliefs. And

23:37

he basically says, look, there's

23:39

a lot of stuff in the world

23:41

that's offensive to people with various kinds of

23:43

beliefs, including religious ones. Children

23:46

encounter real and fictional women who

23:48

forgo motherhood and work outside the home. Children

23:51

read books valorizing our nation's veterans who

23:53

fought in violent wars. And

23:55

children in Montgomery County read books introducing

23:57

them to LGBT characters. Each

23:59

of these things is deeply offensive

24:01

to some people of faith. But just

24:04

being exposed to ideas is not

24:06

contrary to religion. This court

24:08

has made clear that exposure to offensive

24:10

ideas does not burden free exercise. And

24:13

he also says that there are

24:15

practical problems here. that if you

24:17

let this kind of lawsuit move

24:19

forward, it's going to be very

24:21

hard to figure out how that

24:23

works in practice and that courts

24:25

would hear an infinite variety of

24:27

curriculum challenges brought by parents with

24:29

different religious beliefs. An

24:31

infinite variety of objections to all

24:33

sorts of things. I welcome the

24:35

court's questions. And

24:38

what questions do the

24:40

justices have about that argument?

24:42

They travel much of the same

24:44

territory they did in the

24:46

first half. Mr. Schoenfeld, could I

24:48

make sure I understand what

24:51

you mean by coercion? They

24:53

ask about the difference

24:55

between exposure and coercion. That

24:58

is certainly on our side

25:00

of the line between exposure

25:02

and coercion. The school's lawyer

25:04

predictably says that these books

25:06

are not coercive and therefore

25:08

not burdensome. Counsel, you

25:10

said that nothing in the

25:12

policy requires students to affirm what's

25:14

being taught or what's being

25:16

presented in the books. Is

25:18

that a realistic concept when you're

25:20

talking about a five -year -old? Chief Justice

25:22

Roberts tries to pin down how much

25:25

age is a factor. I

25:27

mean, you do want to say you don't

25:29

have to follow the teacher's instruction. You don't have

25:31

to agree with the teacher. And

25:33

even as the lawyer for the

25:35

school board insists that his client is

25:37

not pushing any particular worldview, I

25:39

think what's in the record is that

25:41

the board wants to teach civility

25:43

and respect for difference in the classroom.

25:46

Several of the conservative justices seem

25:48

pretty skeptical of that. Why is the

25:50

Montgomery County Board of Education in

25:52

this argument running away from what they

25:54

clearly want to say? They

25:56

have a view that they want to express

25:58

on these subjects. And maybe it's

26:00

a very good view, but they have a

26:03

definite view, and that's the whole point

26:05

of this curriculum. Is it not? I'm

26:07

not running away from anything the board

26:09

has. Justice Alito says essentially, just own

26:11

up to it. These books

26:13

are meant to endorse certain

26:15

values, and those are not

26:18

values shared by people of

26:20

all religious faiths. And they're

26:22

being used in English language

26:24

instruction at age three. Some

26:27

of them. So Pride Puppy was the

26:29

book that was used for the pre

26:31

-kindergarten. Justice Gorsuch, for instance, seems

26:33

to have read a book

26:35

for a pre -kindergarten named

26:37

Pride Puppy quite closely. So

26:39

the book is an alphabet primer. A

26:42

is for something, B is for something, and

26:44

so on in each page. And there are pictures

26:46

of lots of things on those pages. That's

26:48

the one where they are supposed to

26:50

look for the leather and things and bondage

26:53

things like that. It's not bondage. It's

26:55

a woman and a leather sex worker, right?

26:57

No, no, it's not correct. No, I

26:59

thought I gosh, I read it.

27:01

Drag queen and drag queen. The leather

27:03

that they're pointing to is a

27:06

woman in a leather jacket. And

27:08

one of the words is drag queen in

27:10

this and they're supposed to look for those. It

27:12

is an option at the end of the

27:14

book. Yeah. Okay. And it doesn't perfectly match up

27:16

to what the book says. but

27:18

he sure has the impression that

27:20

there's something gone terribly awry here. And

27:23

what emerges from all of

27:25

this is that it's kind

27:27

of hard to find the

27:29

line of what crosses the

27:32

line into being a violation

27:34

of religious freedom. But

27:36

one thing that seems pretty clear

27:38

for several of the conservative justices

27:40

is that whatever else you can

27:42

say, these books

27:44

for young children crossed the

27:46

line. Why is it so

27:48

hard for them to define exactly what the

27:50

line is? Well, the Supreme

27:52

Court does two things. It

27:54

decides individual disputes, but

27:57

it also lays down general

27:59

legal principles that will

28:01

apply in all kinds of

28:03

cases. And I think

28:05

the court is having a

28:07

hard time figuring out what the

28:09

implications of a ruling for

28:11

the parents here would be for

28:13

other kinds of religious objections. to

28:16

say, and these are real

28:18

cases, books about wizards

28:21

and giants, books

28:23

about evolution and the Big

28:25

Bang Theory, even

28:27

books about children doing things

28:29

that don't conform to

28:32

traditional stereotypes of gender roles.

28:34

Parents are objected to

28:36

a book where one student,

28:38

a girl reads a

28:40

recipe and another student, a

28:42

boy cooks the meal. So

28:45

The court is a little concerned

28:47

that it not come up with

28:49

a rule that is going to

28:51

complicate the lives of teachers and

28:53

school administrators all across the country.

28:55

Right, because basically if they allowed

28:57

the parents to prevail in this

28:59

case, then maybe some other parent

29:01

is going to say, I

29:04

don't want my kid reading Harry Potter. I

29:06

don't want my kid learning about Halloween and it's

29:08

all based on religious grounds. That's

29:10

right. But as complicated as finding

29:12

the line may be for several

29:14

of the justices, there's also this sense

29:16

on the right side of the

29:18

court. Well, the plaintiffs here

29:20

are not asking the school

29:22

to change its curriculum. They're just

29:24

saying, look, we want out.

29:26

Why isn't that feasible? Particularly

29:28

for justices Alito and Kavanaugh, that

29:30

this particular problem shouldn't be

29:32

that hard to solve. I'm

29:34

not understanding why it's not feasible.

29:38

repeatedly say. What is the big

29:40

deal about allowing them to opt

29:43

out of this? Is this really

29:45

so tough to let people opt

29:47

out of these particular classes? Why

29:49

is it not administrable? They're

29:51

able to opt out of the health class,

29:53

right? And what does

29:55

the school district lawyers say

29:57

about that? He says that

29:59

it's harder than it looks. So,

30:01

again, I think what's in the record

30:04

is that with respect to these books, as

30:06

they were deployed in the classroom, there

30:08

was high absenteeism in some schools. For example,

30:10

dozens of students being opted out in...

30:12

It's not so easy to find something else

30:14

for the kid to do who's opted

30:16

out of the class. Making

30:18

arrangements for those students to

30:21

have adequate space and supervision

30:23

and alternative instruction, I think,

30:25

is infeasible. But Justice

30:27

Kavanaugh in particular... that

30:29

this is fairly straightforward

30:31

and that compromise is

30:33

the best solution. I

30:36

guess I'm just not understanding.

30:38

The whole goal, I think, of

30:40

some of our religion precedents is

30:42

to look for the win -win, to

30:45

look for the situation where you

30:47

can respect the religious beliefs and

30:49

accommodate the religious beliefs while the

30:51

state or city or whatever it

30:53

may be can pursue its goals.

30:56

And here, they're not asking you

30:58

to change what's taught in the

31:00

classroom. And that

31:02

idea seems to have the support

31:04

of a majority of the

31:06

justices. And this

31:08

is in keeping with really

31:10

countless cases from the Roberts

31:12

Court, which has been in

31:14

business for two decades now

31:17

and has ruled in favor

31:19

of religious groups and religious

31:21

individuals and religious claims. at

31:24

a higher rate than any

31:26

court in modern history. And

31:28

just to remind you of a couple of them,

31:31

a web designer who didn't

31:33

want to create websites for

31:35

same -sex marriages won. I remember

31:37

that one. A high school

31:39

football coach who wanted to

31:41

prey on the 50 -yard

31:44

line after his games won. It's

31:46

really been an extraordinary winning

31:49

streak for religion, and it seems

31:51

like it will continue here.

31:54

If the court finds the way

31:56

that you suggest they will find

31:58

in this case, what do you

32:00

think that that will actually mean for

32:02

American education? Well, if

32:04

the court rules, as I

32:06

expect it will, it

32:08

will give religion a

32:11

major role in shaping American

32:13

public education. It

32:15

will mean that teachers, principals,

32:18

and public schools everywhere we'll

32:21

have to consider at least

32:23

the possibility of these kinds of

32:25

objections when they're putting together

32:27

a curriculum. And

32:29

the materials they choose that

32:31

may be objectionable to some

32:34

religious parents will come at

32:36

a cost. They'll have to

32:38

create a structure around those materials

32:40

to let kids opt out of being

32:42

exposed to them. Which seems extremely

32:44

arduous just to note. It's sure a

32:46

lot easier just to say, let's

32:48

skip it. Let's use other books. Let's

32:50

not use books that are going to

32:52

provoke a reaction. And maybe

32:54

that's the right attitude. Maybe it's

32:56

the wrong attitude, but it's certainly

32:59

going to make for changes. And

33:04

if, as the school's lawyer said

33:06

at the argument, the opt -out policies

33:08

are too hard to implement, the

33:11

bottom line is that these

33:13

materials may not be taught at

33:15

all. And it might be

33:17

easier to stick to books like

33:19

Jack and Jill. or sleeping

33:21

beauty, and forget about

33:23

Uncle Bobby's wedding. Well,

33:32

Adam, thank you very much. Thank

33:34

you, Rachel. We'll

33:45

be right back. I'm

33:56

Dane Brugler. I cover the NFL

33:59

Draft for the Athletic. Our

34:01

draft guide picked up the name The

34:03

Beast because of the crazy amount

34:05

of information that's included. I'm looking at

34:07

thousands of players putting together hundreds

34:09

of scouting reports. I've been covering this

34:11

year's draft since last year's draft.

34:13

There is a lot in The Beast

34:15

that you simply can't find anywhere

34:17

else. This is the kind of in

34:19

-depth unique journalism you get from the

34:21

Athletic and the New York Times.

34:23

You can subscribe at nytimes.com. Here's

34:29

what else you need to know today. Russia

34:31

killed at least 12 people and

34:33

injured 90 others in a huge attack

34:36

on Kiev early Thursday, prompting

34:38

President Trump to issue a rare public

34:40

critique of Moscow. Vladimir,

34:42

stop. Mr. Trump posted on

34:44

Truth Social, saying that he was,

34:46

quote, not happy with the Russian

34:48

strikes. Not necessary and

34:50

very bad timing," the post

34:52

added. And a

34:54

federal judge in New Hampshire on

34:56

Thursday limited the ability of the Trump

34:58

administration to withhold federal funds from

35:01

public schools that have certain kinds of

35:03

diversity and equity initiatives. The

35:05

judge said that the administration had

35:07

not adequately defined diversity, equity, and

35:09

inclusion, and that its actions threatened

35:11

to restrict free speech in the

35:13

classroom while also overstepping federal authority

35:16

over local schools. The

35:18

decision followed a demand earlier this

35:21

month by the administration that all

35:23

50 state education agencies attest that

35:25

their schools do not use DEI

35:27

practices that violate President Trump's interpretation

35:29

of civil rights law. Today's

35:35

episode was produced by Will Reed,

35:37

Anna Foley, and Eric Kruppke. It

35:39

was edited by Devin Taylor and

35:41

contains original music by Dan Powell,

35:43

engineered by Chris Wood, with theme

35:46

music by Jim Brunberg and Ben

35:48

Landsberg of Wonderly. That's

35:54

it for the Daily. I'm Rachel

35:56

Abrams. See you Monday. Time

36:04

for a quick break to talk about

36:06

McDonald's. Now get two sausage McMuffin with

36:08

egg sandwiches for just $5. That's

36:11

right, $5. And with

36:13

many locations opening at 5 a or

36:15

earlier, your morning starts when you do.

36:17

Order ahead on the app, skip the

36:19

wait, and grab your breakfast on your

36:21

schedule. It's mornings made better at McDonald's.

36:23

participation may vary must opt into rewards.