Rachel Abrams

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

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

My new favorite book.

My new favorite book.

Watch out, Hunger Caterpillar.

Watch out, Hunger Caterpillar.

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

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

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. Right.

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. Right.

Like, where does it end?

Like, where does it end?

So how does the lawyer for the parents respond to this idea that basically this case would open up the floodgates to a bunch of objections that schools would basically find unmanageable?

So how does the lawyer for the parents respond to this idea that basically this case would open up the floodgates to a bunch of objections that schools would basically find unmanageable?

So, Adam, what happens in the second half of these arguments?