红杏视频

WASHINGTON 鈥� The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Mahmoud v. Taylor that Montgomery County Public Schools must allow religious opt-outs from any lessons that parents believe will interfere with the religious development of their children, including LGBTQ-themed materials. The decision could have far-reaching consequences for public schools鈥� ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities, as well schools鈥� ability to implement any secular lesson plan that may trigger religious objections. The case involves a district policy that prohibits all opt-outs from the district鈥檚 English Language Arts curriculum. The curriculum, which includes some LGBTQ-themed books and resources, is secular, age-appropriate, and designed to be inclusive. 鈥淲hile fundamentally important, religious freedom shouldn鈥檛 force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don鈥檛 align with their families鈥� religious views,鈥� said Daniel Mach, director of the 红杏视频鈥檚 Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. 鈥淭his decision could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is a drastic break from decades of precedent,鈥� said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the 红杏视频. 鈥淔or the first time now, parents with religious objections are empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district鈥檚 legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption 鈥� ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences.鈥� Deborah Jeon, legal director for the 红杏视频 of Maryland, added: 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is deeply disappointing. Our public-education system should be one that embraces differences as an opportunity to foster understanding and bring people together.鈥� In April, the 红杏视频 and the 红杏视频 of Maryland filed an amicus brief arguing that MCPS鈥檚 policy prohibiting opt-outs from the English Language Arts curriculum is religiously neutral and applicable across the board and should be analyzed under a lower standard of legal review, which the policy easily satisfies. This case is part of the 红杏视频鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. The ruling is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

The 红杏视频 has served as counsel or filed amicus briefs in more than half of the cases that the Supreme Court will decide today.

NEW ORLEANS 鈥� In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled today that a Louisiana law requiring public schools to permanently display a government-approved, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom is unconstitutional. The decision upholds a federal district court鈥檚 November 2024 preliminary injunction in Rev. Roake v. Brumley, which prevents the defendant state officials and school boards from implementing the statute. Pointing to the Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling in Stone v. Graham, which overturned a similar Kentucky law, the court of appeals held that Louisiana鈥檚 H.B. 71 violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As the court explained, Stone remains good law that is binding on lower courts and 鈥淸u]nder Stone, H.B. 71 is plainly unconstitutional.鈥� The court further explained that, 鈥渦nder the statute鈥檚 minimum requirements, the [Ten Commandments] posters must be indiscriminately displayed in every public school classroom in Louisiana regardless of class subject-matter,鈥� and thus, if allowed to go up, 鈥渢hose displays will cause an 鈥榠rreparable鈥� deprivation of [the Plaintiffs鈥橾 First Amendment rights.鈥� Represented by the 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel, the plaintiffs in Roake v. Brumley are a multifaith group of nine Louisiana families with children in public schools. 鈥淲e are grateful for this decision, which honors the religious diversity and religious-freedom rights of public school families across Louisiana,鈥� said the Rev. Darcy Roake, who is a plaintiff in the case along with her husband, Adrian Van Young. 鈥淎s an interfaith family, we believe that our children should receive their religious education at home and within our faith communities, not from government officials.鈥� 鈥淭his is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education,鈥� said Heather L. Weaver, Senior Staff Attorney for the 红杏视频鈥檚 Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. 鈥淲ith today鈥檚 ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith.鈥� 鈥淲e are pleased that the First Amendment rights of students and families are protected by this vital court decision,鈥� said Patrick Elliott, Legal Director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 鈥淭his ruling will ensure that Louisiana families鈥攏ot politicians or public-school officials鈥攇et to decide if, when and how their children engage with religion,鈥� said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 鈥淚t should send a strong message to Christian Nationalists across the country that they cannot impose their beliefs on our nation鈥檚 public-school children. Not on our watch.鈥� 鈥淩eligious freedom鈥攖he right to choose one鈥檚 faith without pressure鈥攊s essential to American democracy,鈥� said Alanah Odoms, Executive Director of the 红杏视频 of Louisiana. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling ensures that the schools our plaintiffs鈥� children attend will stay focused on learning, without promoting a state-preferred version of Christianity.鈥� Jon Youngwood, Global Co-Chair of Simpson Thacher鈥檚 Litigation Department, added, 鈥淲e are heartened by the Fifth Circuit鈥檚 well-reasoned and detailed opinion, which rests upon the wisdom of the First Amendment and the protections it affords regarding the separation of church and state." Today鈥檚 opinion is available online here.

FAYETTEVILLE, A.R. 鈥� A multifaith group of seven Arkansas families with children in public schools filed suit in federal court today to block a new state law requiring all public elementary and secondary schools to 鈥減rominently鈥� display the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library. The plaintiffs in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1 are represented by the 红杏视频 of Arkansas, the 红杏视频, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. Arkansas Act 573 of 2025 (鈥淎ct 573鈥�) requires the scriptural displays to be a minimum of 16 x 20 inches in size and hung in a 鈥渃onspicuous place鈥� in each classroom and library. The text of the Ten Commandments must be printed 鈥渋n a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the room.鈥� The law also mandates that a specific version of the Ten Commandments, associated with Protestant faiths and selected by lawmakers, be used for every display. In their complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, the plaintiffs, who are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist, or nonreligious, assert that Act 573 violates longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the U.S. Constitution鈥檚 First Amendment. More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that the separation of church and state bars public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms. Following this precedent, a federal district court held last year in Roake v. Brumley that a Louisiana law similar to Act 573 violates parents鈥� and students鈥� First Amendment rights. That case, in which the plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as the plaintiffs here, is currently on appeal. 鈥淎s American Jews, my husband and I deeply value the ability to raise our children in our faith, without interference from the government,鈥� said Plaintiff Samantha Stinson. 鈥淏y imposing a Christian-centric translation of the Ten Commandments on our children for nearly every hour of every day of their public-school education, this law will infringe on our rights as parents and create an unwelcoming and religiously coercive school environment for our children.鈥� Plaintiff Carol Vella agreed: 鈥淢y children are among a small number of Jewish students at their school. The classroom displays required by Act 573 will make them feel like they don鈥檛 belong simply because they don鈥檛 follow the government鈥檚 favored religion. The displays will also violate core Jewish tenets, which emphasize tolerance and inclusion and prohibit evangelizing others.鈥� According to the complaint, which includes claims under both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, Act 573鈥檚 classroom and library displays will interfere with parents鈥� First Amendment right to direct their children鈥檚 religious upbringing and create a religiously coercive school environment: 鈥淧ermanently posting the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library鈥攔endering them unavoidable鈥攗nconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state鈥檚 favored religious scripture. It also sends the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments鈥攐r, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that Act 573 requires schools to display鈥攄o not belong in their own school community and pressures them to refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state鈥檚 religious preferences.鈥� In addition to the complaint, the plaintiffs plan to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, which will ask the court to issue an order temporarily preventing implementation of the law, which takes effect on August 5, 2025, while the lawsuit is pending. Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the 红杏视频 added: 鈥淧ublic schools are not Sunday schools. Apparently, Arkansas lawmakers need a lesson in the First Amendment.鈥� 鈥淭he right to decide which religious beliefs, if any, to follow belongs to families and faith communities, not the government,鈥� said John Williams, legal director for the 红杏视频 of Arkansas. 鈥淲e will not allow Arkansas politicians to misuse our public schools to impose scripture on children.鈥� FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says, 鈥淭his is a clear imposition of religious doctrine on Arkansas public school children. We will fight to uphold this nation鈥檚 foundational constitutional principles.鈥� 鈥淥ur Constitution鈥檚 guarantee of church-state separation means that families 鈥� not politicians 鈥� get to decide if, when and how public-school children engage with religion,鈥� said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 鈥淭his law is part of the nationwide Christian Nationalist scheme to win favor for one set of religious views over all others and nonreligion 鈥� in a country that promises religious freedom. Not on our watch. We鈥檙e proud to defend the religious freedom of Arkansas schoolchildren and their families.鈥� A copy of the complaint can be found here.