The Supreme Court on Tuesday supported a group of parents who sued the school board in suburbs Maryland for refusing to allow elementary school parents to opt out of classes with LGBTQ-themed picture books.
The plaintiffs argue that the Montgomery County school system, just outside of Washington, D.C., cannot require children to sit through lessons that include books if families are religiously challenged.
” [school] The board may use porn to force mentoring under that theory, and parents will not object that they have no rights,” argued Eric Baxter, lawyer for parent Tamer Mahmoud.
“The First Amendment calls for more. Parents should have final say on such religious issues, not the school board.”
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) approved a book on a specific LGBTQ-themed curriculum in late 2022. Initially, the MCP allowed parents to opt out with religious concerns, but by March 2023 it overturned the course, citing concerns about absences and administrative officers.
A group of parents of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox faith sued the school district, alleging a lack of an opt-out system that trampled on their religious rights as parents.
Both the federal judge and the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously supported the school board by denying the provisional injunctions sought by parents. The Fourth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs should show that children are being forced to act differently than their religious beliefs.
“There’s no need to decide whether to opt out or not,” conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett meditated at one point. “We need to determine whether the Fourth Circuit has defined exactly what a burden is.”
Barrett then expressed concern about the LGBTQ-covered classroom instructions not only expose students to various ideas, but also attempting to impress “this is the right way to see the world” and “how to think about things.”
Sometimes, some of the conservative justice sounded uneasy about the content of some of the books in question.
“It’s what they were supposed to look for such leather and bondage,” Judge Neil Gorsuch asked about the “Pride Puppy” book for Pre-K students.
“Do you think it’s fair to say that all that’s going on at ‘Uncle Bobby’s Wedding’ is to expose children to the fact that there are men who will marry other men? “Judge Samuel Alito asked Baxter before answering his question.
“There’s a clear message in this book, and many people think it’s a good message, and maybe it’s a good message, but that’s a message that many people who hold traditional religious beliefs disagree.”
MCPS lawyer Alan Schoenfeld argued that the school system already provides ample opportunity to provide input to parents.
“The school board here was democratically elected,” he argued. “The entire process of adopting this curriculum is open and transparent. These books have been reviewed for 30 days before creating a part of the curriculum. There is then a multi-level appeal process.
“There are many opportunities for parental insights.”
Judge Brett Kavanaugh said at one point, “How did this come as a lifetime resident of the county?”
“Other Maryland has opted out of all sorts of things,” Justice added.
Schoenfeld explained that classes can be “dozens of students leaving,” and that schools struggle to grasp the logistics of alternative spaces and their supervision.
“They don’t do that because of all other kinds of opt-out,” the lawyer retorted. “There’s a limited universe where students can opt out.”
“The plaintiffs here have not asked the school to change its curriculum,” Alito rejoins. “They just say, ‘Look, we want to go outside.’ Why is it not feasible?
Schoenfeld tried to impress the High Court that schools across the country teach a variety of lessons that contradict their parents’ beliefs.
“Children encounter real, fictional women who abandon their motherhood and work outside the home,” he said. “Children read books that encourage veterans in our country who fought violent wars. Each of these is deeply uncomfortable for some of our faith.”
Liberal justice appeared particularly concerned about redefineing the definition of “burden.”
“How would you make it very clear that mere exposure to what you object to is not forced?” Judge Sonia Sotomayor asked Baxter at one point.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson stressed that if parents “can choose to place their children elsewhere” and that they do not agree to what is being taught, they do not need to send their children to public schools.
“I think it’s hard to see how parents burden religious movements when schools teach that parents don’t agree,” she admitted. “There’s a choice. You don’t have to send your child to that school.”
Jackson also listed a set of hypotheses, including gay teachers talking to children about their spouses and transgender students, and admitted to Baxter that they probably wouldn’t support opt-out in these scenarios.
Judge Elena Kagan suggested that her parents’ lawyers “we didn’t want to draw a line” where opt-out was not respected.
“You’re still in school and you’re giving nothing except when your honest religious parents are dissenting, and that objection will always lead to opt-out.
The Supreme Court will be Mahmoudv by the end of June. It is expected that a decision will be made in Taylor.
