Trump’s first immigration raid to target 300 people in Chicago on Tuesday

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/17/trump-ice-raid-chicago-report

Why make a point to hit Chicago?  Because the city is the third largest sanctuary city and the state President Obama lived in when he was in the Senate.  This is entirely to make a point, make a splashy example.  Their goal is to talk tough and act like the biggest bullies in the schoolyard.  Hugs

“And if the Chicago mayor doesn’t want to help, he can step aside. But if he impedes us, if he knowingly harbors or conceals an illegal alien, I will prosecute him,” he was quoted as saying.

Operations billed as targeted raids often result in more of a dragnet effect, however, where residents without any kind of criminal record who happen to be undocumented are swept up and put under threat of deportation, and even many who are living and working in the US legally are held for hours or days after being rounded up alongside others.

Trump has often been critical of Chicago, which has some of the country’s strongest protections for people in the country without legal status.

The nation’s third-largest city became a so-called sanctuary city in the 1980s, limiting how police can cooperate with federal immigration agents. It has strengthened those policies several times since, including after Trump first took office eight years ago.

==========================================================

Administration to send 100 to 200 officers to city on day two of new presidency, Wall Street Journal reports

two men wearing shirts that say 'police' outside a house

Ice officials arrive to arrest a Mexican national at a home in Paramount, California, in 2020. Photograph: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters

—————————————————————————————

Donald Trump’s incoming presidential administration plans to launch a large immigration raid in Chicago the day after he takes office, according to unnamed officials talking to various media outlets.

Federal immigration officers will target more than 300 people, focusing on those with histories of violent crimes, one official told the Associated Press, marking Trump’s initial attempt toward fulfilling his campaign promise of large-scale deportations.

 

The operation will be concentrated in the Chicago area, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because plans have not been made public. Arrests are expected all week.

News that Chicago has emerged as the earliest target city in the expected crackdown from the incoming Republican president was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Friday, citing four people familiar with planning.

The raid, expected to start on Tuesday, would last all week, the newspaper said, adding that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) would send between 100 and 200 officers to carry out the operation.

Ice and the Trump transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday. But a source with knowledge of the incoming administration’s plans previously told Reuters that Ice would intensify enforcement across the country but that there would not be a special focus on Chicago or a surge of personnel there.

“We’re going to be doing operations all across the country,” the person said. “You’re going to see arrests in New York. You’re going to see arrests in Miami.”

Trump’s incoming border czar, Tom Homan, said at an event in Chicago that the administration was “going to start right here in Chicago, Illinois”, the Journal reported.

“And if the Chicago mayor doesn’t want to help, he can step aside. But if he impedes us, if he knowingly harbors or conceals an illegal alien, I will prosecute him,” he was quoted as saying.

Homan then told Fox News that Chicago will be one of many places across the country where federal authorities plan to make arrests.

“We’re going to take the handcuffs off Ice and let them go arrest criminal aliens, that’s what’s going to happen,” Homan said. “What we’re telling Ice, you’re going to go enforce the immigration law without apology. You’re going to concentrate on the worst first, public-safety threats first, but no one is off the table. If they’re in the country illegally, they got a problem.”

Operations billed as targeted raids often result in more of a dragnet effect, however, where residents without any kind of criminal record who happen to be undocumented are swept up and put under threat of deportation, and even many who are living and working in the US legally are held for hours or days after being rounded up alongside others.

Trump told NBC News on Saturday that mass deportations remain a top priority. He didn’t give an exact date or city where they’ll start, but he said they would begin soon.

“It’ll begin very early, very quickly,” he said, adding: “I can’t say which cities because things are evolving. And I don’t think we want to say what city. You’ll see it firsthand. …

“We have to get the criminals out of our country. And I think you would agree with that. I don’t know how anyone could not agree.”

Immigration was at the center of Trump’s campaign in the lead-up to the 5 November presidential election.

“Within moments of my inauguration, we will begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” Trump said in January 2024.

Trump is expected to mobilize agencies across the US government to help him deport record numbers of immigrants, Reuters has reported, building on efforts in his first term to tap all available resources and pressure so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions to cooperate.

Immigrants and groups advocating for them have been preparing to throw up legal roadblocks to mass deportation.

Trump has often been critical of Chicago, which has some of the country’s strongest protections for people in the country without legal status.

The nation’s third-largest city became a so-called sanctuary city in the 1980s, limiting how police can cooperate with federal immigration agents. It has strengthened those policies several times since, including after Trump first took office eight years ago.

The Illinois governor, JB Pritzker, and first-term Chicago mayor, Brandon Johnson, both Democrats, have said they won’t back off those commitments.

Homan blasted top Democratic leaders in the state during a visit to the Chicago area last month.

“The reality is that, I think there has been a level of fear since Election Day,” Brandon Lee, a spokesperson for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, said on Saturday. “We were always operating as though Trump was going to target Chicago and Illinois early in his administration.”

Advocates have been working to inform immigrants of their rights, and creating phone trees to notify people about where and when officers are making arrests. Officers typically work without warrants that entitle them to forcibly enter a home.

“We’re just trying to be as ready as we can,” Lee said. “We’re never going to know all the details [of Ice operations]. But for members of the community, knowing their rights is empowering.”

Jesus García and Delia Ramirez, Democratic members of Congress, urged immigrants in Chicago to remain calm and exercise their rights, particularly to remain silent and refuse to allow officers into their homes without warrants.

Reuters and the Associated Press contributed reporting

Is God Punishing Los Angeles?

Peace & Justice History for 1/19

January 19, 1966
The Georgia State House of Representatives refused to seat black state representative Julian Bond despite his election the previous November.
Their stated objection was his endorsement of a Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee statement accusing the United States of violating international law in Vietnam.
In December 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Bond’s exclusion unconstitutional, and Bond was finally sworn in the following month.

Julian Bond
Read more  
January 19, 1991
25,000 marched in Washington, D.C. to protest massive U.S. bombing of Iraq in the first Gulf war, Operation Desert Storm.

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistoryjanuary.htm#january19

Mike Johnson’s Biblical World View And Help For California Wildfire Victims

I like what he says about the idea that you have to earn god’s love, you have to earn salvation.  This is in relation to the maga in congress not wanting to give aid to California for the fire assistance.  He points out that if you have to earn your salvation then you did it not Jesus.  And if you can do it on your own why need god?  He points out that the Jesus never required people to prove they were worth before he helped them.  Hugs

MAGA Policies and Christian Nationalist Rhetoric: America First Policy Institute Fills Trump’s Cabinet

https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwingwatch/maga-policies-and-christian-nationalist-rhetoric-america-first-policy-institute

I keep saying these people won’t stop ever until they get their way.  They believe they are on a mission from their god to turn the entire country Christian.  But not just Christian, the kind of Christian they themselves are.  They want to force everyone to live according to their church doctrines.  Why?  I don’t understand it, but they think taking away the public’s freewill will make their god so happy he will return to give them their reward of a paradise on earth.  But I thought god’s kingdom was in heaven, not on earth?  But this idea that they and they alone know what god wants, that they and they alone have the right to tell others how to live, how to think, how to have sex, who to have sex with, what they can watch or listen to, even what god they can believe in, and how they are to pray to that god.  As they demand.  I do not get or understand what makes these people think they can rule other people, rule others lives, do all to others I have written above.  Why can they not give others the same rights they demand for themselves, the right to live their lives and worship as they please?  But please notice the wealthy person bankrolling so much of the effort to turn Texas in to a theocracy.  Think about his actions when others try to stop him to protect democracy?   He smears them to try to destroy them.  This is the type of Christian warrior he is and they are.  Do as I say not as I do, or the big one, it is OK to do bad things in the name of Jesus.   Hugs.

================================================================

Donald Trump in a tuxedo speaks at a lectern in front of logos for the America First Policy Institute and its political arm, America First Works.
Donald Trump at a November 2024 gala for America First Policy Institute and its political arm America First Works
 

The America First Policy Institute, a MAGA movement think tank founded by former Trump aides, has raised millions in tax-exempt funds to promote policies that would undermine public educationrestrict access to abortionlimit voter registration and votingroll back environmental protectionsgut government’s ability to regulate corporate behavior, pursue campaigns against transgender people, and more.

AFPI has provided money, an institutional home, and political platforms to many of the people Trump has nominated to run the country; quite a few high-level Trump nominees have AFPI connections, including:

  • Pam Bondi, Attorney General (Chair, AFPI Center for Litigation; co-chair Center for Law and Justice) 
  • Kash Patel, FBI (Senior Fellow, AFPI Center for American Security)
  • Linda McMahon, Education (Board chair; chair, Center for the American Worker)
  • Lee Zeldin, Environmental Protection Agency (Chair, China Policy Initiative & Pathway to 2025)
  • John Ratcliffe, Central Intelligence Agency (C-chair Center for National Security)
  • Doug Collins, Veterans Affairs (head of Georgia AFPI Chapter)
  • Brooke Rollins, Agriculture (Co-founder, President and CEO)
  • Kevin Hassett, National Economic Council (Chair, Board of Academic Advisors)
  • Matthew Whitaker, NATO (Co-chair, Center for Law & Justice)
  • Casey Mulligan, Small Business Administration, chief counsel (Board of Academic Advisors)

Trump’s first public speech after winning the 2024 election was at an AFPI gala at Mar-a-Lago, where he was joined by other MAGA luminaries, including HHS nominee Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and “Department of Government Efficiency” leaders Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

AFPI founder Rollins has bragged about the group’s “revolutionary” plans to seize control of the “administrative state.” The group’s agenda for the incoming administration—its “transition project”—is in some ways even more radical than the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. AFPI believes Trump should be allowed to fire and replace any federal employee at will – potentially converting the entire federal workforce into a massive and corrupt political patronage system. AFPI has reportedly prepared 300 executive orders for Trump.

As an officer at the America First Policy Institute, Bondi tried to undermine special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation of Trump by arguing that his appointment was unconstitutional. She oversaw what the Brennan Center has called “a number of troubling voting rights and election lawsuits,” leading the pro-democracy organization to conclude, “Her record on voting and elections raises questions about her ability to be the attorney general the American public deserves.”

In a case in which AFPI sought to empower local election officials to delay or block certification of elections, AFPI’s arguments were “meritless and radical,” according to the Brennan Center. In another case filed shortly before, even notorious pro-Trump Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk rejected AFPI’s “emergency” request to block a Biden executive order on voter registration that had been in place for several years. Kacsmaryk wrote that AFPI’s request provided “no direct evidence” to support its claims. The Brennan Center noted that the lawsuit “served to amplify baseless conspiracy theories about noncitizen voting.”

AFPI is funded in part by Tim Dunn, who the Texas Monthly has called “the billionaire bully who wants to turn Texas into a Christian theocracy.” Dunn is notorious for funding smear campaigns against Texas Republicans who don’t fall in line with his demands. Dunn poured millions of dollars into the effort to elect Trump to a second term, and supports other right-wing causes, like the Convention of States’ efforts to rewrite the U.S. ConstitutionIn a 2019 speech to Convention of States, Dunn argued that the Bible is “mainly about politics” and said that COS is triggering a Great Awakening.

Not so surprisingly, AFPI promotes Christian nationalist rhetoric; AFPI leaders have described their efforts as part of a “spiritual war.” AFPI’s political arm, which is chaired by Dunn, partnered with dominionist Lance Wallnau—who believes right-wing Christians are meant to control the government and every other sphere of influence in society–to help Trump return to power. Dunn himself reportedly told former Texas House Speaker Joe Straus, who is Jewish, that only Christians should be in leadership positions in the legislature.

Also in leadership at AFPI is Trump spiritual and political adviser Paula White, who has repeatedly called Trump’s opponents demonic and kicked off his pre-insurrection rally with a prayer for “holy boldness.” White chairs AFPI’s Center for American Values.

AFPI’s faith director Richard Rogers, who took part in Wallnau’s “Courage Tour,” appeared on The Jim Bakker show this week, where he said there will be a “faith director” in every government agency in the new administration.  He predicted that the “prayer warriors” who “rose up” on Trump’s behalf in 2024 will “have more power than Elon Musk.” He described AFPI as a “data-driven machine” that worked “hand-in-hand” with the RNC to boost turnout among low-propensity voters.

AFPI claims “biblical foundations” for each of the ten “pillars” of its right-wing policy agenda, which it calls “10 Pillars for Restoring a Nation Under God.” It asserts, “The Ten Commandments and Christian teachings have been the foundation that created the American legal system.” AFPI’s website declares, “This fight is not just about the culture of America; it’s about the kingdom of God and the Church’s divine mission to be the salt and light of our day in an era of increasing darkness.”

NO ONE HAS ENACTED “ANTI-CHRISTIAN” POLICIES, EVER. That would be in direct violation of the Constitution.

These fucking loons think that if something is not 10000% pro-christianity, then by default it is 100000000% ANTI.

100% separation of church and state is just as important to the church as it is to the state, and possibly more so.

 

Treaty of Waitangi 101

The US is not the only people who have indigenous people who they have not treated fairly or with respect.  Friend of the blog Barry has a wonderful video detailing how simple it is if you want to respect the agreements and the people.  Best wishes.  

META is “becoming” anti-woke with the announcement of moderation changes, but really…

As Zuckerberg Goes Around Whining About Biden, He Made Sure To First Get His New Approach Approved By Trump

from the you-realize-how-that’s-worse,-right? dept

Remember how Zuckerberg was “done with politics”? Remember how he promised that he was going to stop doing what politicians demanded he do?

Now it turns out that he not only did his big set of moderation changes to please Trump, but did so only after he was told by the incoming administration to act. Even worse, he reportedly made sure to share his plans with top Trump aides to get their approval first.

That’s a key takeaway from a new New York Times piece that is ostensibly a profile of the relentlessly awful Stephen Miller. However, it also has a few revealing details about the whole Zuckerberg saga buried within. First, Miller reportedly demanded that Zuckerberg make changes at Facebook “on Trump’s terms.”

Mr. Miller told Mr. Zuckerberg that he had an opportunity to help reform America, but it would be on President-elect Donald J. Trump’s terms. He made clear that Mr. Trump would crack down on immigration and go to war against the diversity, equity and inclusion, or D.E.I., culture that had been embraced by Meta and much of corporate America in recent years.

Mr. Zuckerberg was amenable. He signaled to Mr. Miller and his colleagues, including other senior Trump advisers, that he would do nothing to obstruct the Trump agenda, according to three people with knowledge of the meeting, who asked for anonymity to discuss a private conversation. Mr. Zuckerberg said he would instead focus solely on building tech products.

Even if you argue that this was more about DEI programs at Meta rather than about content moderation, it’s still the incoming administration reportedly making actual demands of Zuckerberg, and Zuckerberg not just saying “fine” but actually previewing the details to Miller to make sure they got Trump’s blessing.

Earlier this month, Mr. Zuckerberg’s political lieutenants previewed the changes to Mr. Miller in a private briefing. And on Jan. 10, Mr. Zuckerberg made them official….

This is especially galling given that it was just days ago when Zuckerberg was whining about how unfair it was that Biden officials were demanding stuff from him (even though he had no trouble saying no to them) and it was big news! The headlines made a huge deal of how unfair Biden was to Zuckerberg. Here’s just a sampling.

Image

Notably absent from this breathless coverage was any mention that Trump was the one who actually threatened to imprison Zuckerberg for life. Or that his incoming FCC chair threatened to remove Section 230 if Meta didn’t stop fact-checking.

Also conveniently omitted was the fact that the Supreme Court found no evidence of the Biden administration going over the line in its conversations with Meta. Indeed, a Supreme Court Justice noted that conversations like those that the Biden admin had with Meta happened “thousands of times a day,” and weren’t problematic because there was no inherent threat or direct coordination.

Yet, here, we have reports of both threats and now evidence of direct coordination, including Zuckerberg asking for and getting direct approval from a top Trump official before rolling out the policy.

And where is this bombshell revelation? It’s buried in a random profile piece puffing up Stephen Miller.

It’s almost as if everyone now takes it for granted that any made-up story about Biden will be treated as fact, and everyone just takes it as expected when Trump actually does the thing that Biden gets falsely accused of.

With this new story, don’t hold your breath waiting for the same outlets to give this anywhere near the same level of coverage and outrage they directed at the Biden administration.

It’s almost as if there’s a massive double standard here: everything is okay if Trump does it, but we can blame the Biden admin for things we only pretend they did.

I’m used to hypocrisy in the political world, but this is beyond ridiculous. It’s now being made clear that the Trump admin is actually doing the exact thing that people were (falsely, misleadingly) blaming Biden for.

And it’s just a random aside in a story, and no one seems to be calling it out. Other than us here at Techdirt.

Peace & Justice History for 1/18

An example of actual “cancel culture” within, plus more.

January 18, 1919
The peace conference to negotiate the end of the Great War (now know as World War I) opened in Paris, France. President Woodrow Wilson spent several months in Europe personally negotiating details of what became the Treaty of Versailles with heads of the allied powers or their foreign ministers.
January 18, 1962
The U.S. began spraying herbicides on foliage in Vietnam to eliminate jungle canopy cover for Viet Cong guerrillas (a policy known as “territory denial”).The U.S. ultimately dropped more than 20 million gallons of such defoliants, sparking charges the United States was violating international treaties against using chemical weapons. Many of the herbicides, particularly Agent Orange, manufactured by Dow Chemical, Monsanto and others, were later found to cause birth defects and rare forms of cancer in humans.

Agent Orange: An Ongoing Atrocity 
January 18, 1968
Invited to a Women Doers luncheon at the Johnson White House, Eartha Kitt, singer and actor, spoke out about the effect of the Vietnam War on America’s youth. Lady Bird Johnson had convened 50 whites and Negroes to discuss President Lyndon Johnson’s anti-crime proposals.
Ms. Kitt first asked the President, “what do you do about delinquent parents, those who have to work and are too busy to look after their children?” He said that there was Social Security money for day care, and the group should discuss such issues.
Later, she told the women that young Americans were “angry because their parents are angry . . . because there is a war going on that they don’t understand . . . You send the best of this country off to be shot and maimed. They rebel in the street. They will take pot . . . and they will get high. They don’t want to go to school because they’re going to be snatched off from their mothers to be shot in Vietnam.”

Eartha Kitt and Lady Bird Johnson
Eartha Kitt’s career took a severe downturn after this; for years afterward, Kitt performed almost exclusively overseas, while being investigated by several federal agencies.
“The thing that hurts, that became anger, was when I realized that if you tell the truth – in a country that says you’re entitled to tell the truth – you get your face slapped and you get put out of work,” Kitt told Essence magazine two decades later.
January 18, 1971
In a televised speech, Senator George S. McGovern (D-South Dakota) began his anti-war campaign for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination. He vowed to bring home all U.S. soldiers from Vietnam if elected. McGovern had served in the Army Air Corps during World War II, earning the Silver Star and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

George McGovern
“. . . we must have the courage to admit that however sincere our motives, we made a dreadful mistake in trying to settle the affairs of the Vietnamese people with American troops and bombers . . . .
“ But while our problems are great, certain steps can be taken to recover the confidence of the nation.  The greatness of our nation is not confined to the past, but beckons us to the future.
 
January 18, 1985
Though a member of the World Court since 1946, the United States walked out during a case. The Court had charged the U.S. was in violation of international law through its support of paramilitary (Contra) activities against the Nicaraguan government. Efforts to undermine the Sandinista government in Nicaragua had been a keystone of Pres. Reagan’s anti-communist foreign policy from its inception.
Congressman Michael Barnes (D-Maryland) said he was “shocked and saddened that the Reagan Administration had so little confidence in its own policies that it chose not even to defend them [in the World Court].”
The Court still heard Nicaragua’s case and decided against the United States, and ordered it to pay reparations to Nicaragua in June 1986.
January 18, 1996
The Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) and the Mexican government reached an agreement in San Andres to recognize and guarantee the constitutional, political, social, cultural, and economic rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico. Treated as second-class citizens since the first colonial entry into their country, the document guaranteed the autonomy and right to self-determination of native communities within the pluricultural Mexican nation.
The Zapatistas took their name from Emilano Zapata who played a major role in the Mexican Revolution early in the 20th century.When they began their revolt in Chiapas state on New Year’s Day of 1994, They wrote:
“We have nothing to lose, absolutely nothing, no decent roof over our heads, no land, no work, poor health, no food, no education, no right to freely and democratically choose our leaders, no independence from foreign interests, and no justice for ourselves or our children.
But we say enough is enough! We are the descendants of those who truly built this nation, we are millions of dispossessed, and we call upon all our brethren to join our crusade, the only option to avoid dying of starvation!”

The Mexican government, despite their signature on the agreement, refused later to implement it.


More background on the Zapatistas 
January 18, 2003
 
In frigid temperatures, 500,000 converged on Washington, D.C.
There were also joined by many more elsewhere around the world to oppose the threatened U.S. war on Iraq.


Anti-war protesters march past the U.S. Capitol during the start of an anti-war protest that will culminate by a march to the Washington Naval Yard.Egyptian riot police and anti-war demonstrators face off in Cairo, Egypt. Banners at top read, ” Iraq . . . Another war for oil and American supremacy.
This was the largest U.S. peace demonstration since the Vietnam era. 
 
< Pakistani peace activists hold a rally in Karachi. > Crowds estimated at 80,000 fill the civic center of San Francisco, California

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistoryjanuary.htm#january18

Supreme Court to hear case on opting out of lessons with LGBTQ+ books

The fact is these kids are exposed to sex and gender as soon as they learn there is a difference between boy and girl.  Hey what do you tell a boy in kindergarten when they need to go to the bathroom.  That’s right in all their younger grades they are instructed to use the bathroom of their gender, boy go to the boys bathroom, girls go to the girls bathroom.  That teaches them gender regardless of these cis straight religious people want to admit it or not.  Plus their goal seems to deny their kids the idea that some people are different, have different feelings when those very kids are in their class and maybe their friends?  They seek to deny these kids friendships with people who are different from them.  It reminds me of the segregation issues in the southern state.  White supremacist did not want their pretty white kids in the same class as the black kids they felt were … something.   It is like they thought the black was able to spread and be caught.  No matter if these religious people like it or not the world has changed, society has changed and it is not the time of their bible nor the fabled 1950s they dream existed.  Trying to deny the existance of the LGBTQ+ is like trying to deny black people exist.   Hugs.  

===============================================================

Parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

January 17, 2025 at 6:54 p.m. 
 
A large group of parents protested in Rockville, Maryland, on June 27, 2023, in an effort to allow their children to opt out of books that feature LGBTQ+ characters in Montgomery County schools. (Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post)
 

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a case about whether public schools must give parents of elementary schoolchildren a chance to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

 

The case stems from a challenge by a group of parents in Maryland’s largest school system, who objected to Montgomery County Public Schools prohibiting parents from taking their children out of lessons that used storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters and themes.

 

Parents, who are Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox, filed suit in 2023, saying the policy violates their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion.

 

The case puts the high court at the center of a contentious national debate over how to teach and treat gender and sexuality in schools, which has spurred fights over booksbathroom use and on which teams transgender athletes should be allowed to play.

 

Eric Baxter, an attorney for the families, said in a statement that the school system’s decision to disallow opt-outs was “cramming down controversial gender ideology” to 3-year-old pupils. Becket, a public interest institute that pushes for religious liberty, is representing the families, and has been involved in other cases on LGBTQ+ issues.

“The Court must make clear: Parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality,” Baxter said.

 

Montgomery County schools declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. But the district wrote in filings to the high court that an adverse ruling could upend long-standing legal precedent that guides how schools teach.

“Petitioners seek to unsettle a decades-old consensus that parents who choose to send their children to public school are not deprived of their right to freely exercise their religion simply because their children are exposed to curricular materials the parents find offensive,” attorneys for the schools wrote.

 

During the 2022-2023 school year, Montgomery County schools introduced a reading list of books that included LGBTQ+ characters as part of an effort to be more inclusive to its diverse student population. The lists were intended for students from prekindergarten to 12th grade and were created with parental feedback.

 

The school system required teachers to read at least one storybook a year from a group of titles that included “Pride Puppy,” which is about a gay pride parade; “Intersection Allies,” which is about a group of children discussing their differences; and “Love, Violet,” which is about a girl who has feelings for a female classmate.

“The storybooks are not used in any lessons related to gender and sexuality,” the school district wrote in its filing. “Nor is any student asked or expected to change his or her views about his or her own, or any other student’s, sexual orientation or gender identity. Instead, the books are made available for individual reading, classroom read-alouds, and other educational activities designed to foster and enhance literacy skills.”

 

The parents wrote in court documents that the Montgomery school board also issued guidance that instructed teachers to emphasize that “not everyone is a boy or girl” and that some “people identify with both, sometimes one more than the other and sometimes neither.”

 

As teachers started using the books in the classroom, some families wanted to opt their children out of the discussions due to concerns that the lessons and subsequent discussions would conflict with their religious views. The books that targeted elementary-aged students were particularly controversial.

Originally, some principals let families pull their children out of the classroom when the books were read. But in March 2023, the school system’s central office announced that opt-outs would not be permitted.

More than 1,100 parents signed a petition asking the district to restore the opt-out right and hundreds protested the decision. Maryland is one of 47 states and the District of Columbia that have opt-out or opt-in provisions for sex education in schools, according to the parents’ filing.

 
 

In May 2023, a group of parents filed a lawsuit against the school system, alleging that the district violated their First Amendment rights and that the decision went against a district policy that allows for religious accommodations. The parents are not asking the school system to drop the curriculum.

Other parents did not support opting out of the curriculum.

After the lawsuit was filed, the school system quietly stopped teaching two of the books referenced in the lawsuit because of concerns that it would “require teachers to explicitly teach vocabulary terms outside of the context of the lesson,” according to a district database.

The parents who sued the district asked a federal judge in Maryland for a preliminary injunction to restore the opt-out provision, but the judge denied the request, ruling the parents were unlikely to succeed because they could not show “that the no-opt-out policy burdens their religious exercise.”

 
 

That ruling was upheld by a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, before the parents petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. Oral arguments in the case will be scheduled later.

Mark Eckstein, a Montgomery County schools parent and LGBTQ+ advocate, said he wasn’t surprised the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, given that discussions around gender and sexuality have roiled school communities across the country.

“I strongly believe that the district court ruled correctly, and I’m hoping there will be a vigorous defense of the wisdom of that decision and MCPS’s policy,” he said.

Montgomery is one of a number of school districts where controversy has flared over books dealing with sexuality and gender. In 2023, a Georgia teacher was fired after she read a book about gender conformity to her fifth-grade class. She sued.

 
 

A group of parents in Dearborn, Michigan, sued the school district in 2022, seeking to remove books from school libraries they felt had inappropriate sexual content. Hundreds of mostly Muslim parents also protested at a school board meeting.

The effort was part of a broader push to pull some books from schools and libraries. The American Library Association found more than 4,200 book titles were targeted for removal from schools in libraries in 2023, greatly outpacing the 2,500 targeted the year before. Almost 50 percent of the titles dealt with gay and minority themes.

The Supreme Court has moved in recent terms to expand religion in education and the rights of the religious.

 

In 2o22, a divided court ruled that Washington state discriminated against a football coach who prayed at midfield after a high school football game. The same year, the high court ruled Maine could not exclude religious schools from a voucher program that provides public assistance for education.

Last year, the high court ruled that the constitution’s free speech provisions shield some businesses from being required to provide services to same-sex couples, after a web designer argued she should not have to do such work because of her religious beliefs.

===============================================

Justin Jouvenal covers the Supreme Court. He previously covered policing and the courts locally and nationally. He joined The Post in 2009. @jjouvenal
Nicole Asbury is a local reporter for The Washington Post covering education and K-12 schools in Maryland.@NicoleAsbury

The case was filed by the Catholic anti-LGBTQ hate group, the Becket Fund, whose senior counsel celebrates below.

The Becket Fund last appeared here in July 2024 when they sued to overturn Michigan’s ban on ex-gay torture.

In 2014, the Becket Fund joined with NOM, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, and Alliance Defending Freedom to form an anti-LGBTQ “supergroup” to battle same-sex marriage.

In 2013, the Becket Fund joined with major Catholic groups in sponsoring the so-called Manhattan Declaration, signers of which avow that they will “civilly disobey” laws that protect LGBTQ people from discrimination.

The Becket Fund was founded in 1994 by a former Reagan administration Justice Department lawyer who worked under future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

The group is named for Saint Thomas Becket, who was Archbishop of Canterbury under King Henry II until he was murdered by followers of the King in the year 1170.

Outside of LGBTQ issues, the Becket Fund is best known for winning cases on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby.