The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a lawsuit brought by a group of Maryland parents alleging that their child's school district refused to allow them to opt out of elementary school classes that included books with LGBTQ themes and characters. He announced that he would consider it.
Parents represented by the Beckett Fund for Religious Freedom came after the school district announced it would no longer accept opt-out requests and would no longer notify families if a book that references gender or sexuality is read in class. In 2023, he sued Montgomery County Public Schools. Maryland's largest school district announced in 2022 that its revised curriculum will include a new reading list of children's stories featuring LGBTQ youth as part of a broader effort to promote diversity and inclusion.
The books included “My Rainbow,'' about a mother who makes a rainbow-colored wig for her transgender daughter, and “Love, Violet,'' about a girl who falls in love with a female classmate. Another book, “Pride Puppy!,'' is about a puppy that gets lost during a gay pride parade.
Initially, the school board announced it would allow parents to remove their children from the classroom while a book was being read, but shortly thereafter reversed course and declared the measure a First Amendment right. There was a wave of protests from parents who said the system violated the rules.
Three families sued the school system in May, claiming that preventing them from excluding LGBTQ-inclusive books from classes violates their free exercise of religion. They're not challenging the curriculum or asking the district to stop reading to other students.
The lead plaintiffs in the case, Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, are Muslims who had their elementary-aged sons removed from public school in August 2023 after a district court sided with Montgomery County. . The other plaintiffs are members of the Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
According to court documents, the parents, who lost twice before appealing to the Supreme Court, believe that a person's sex and sex at birth are “intertwined and inseparable” and “an integral part of God's plan.” are. They teach children about “the enduring sexual differences between men and women, the biblical ways to appropriately express romantic feelings and sexual desires, and the role of parents in loving each other unconditionally and sacrificially within limits.” believe that they have a religious obligation to teach others. Biblical marriage. ”
Attorneys for the school district said in court filings that the books at issue are age-appropriate and “provide important reading comprehension skills” for young students. Additionally, the families involved in the lawsuit presented evidence that Montgomery County Public Schools pressured their children to “affirm or deny particular views” and forced them to behave in violation of their religious beliefs. He added that he had not.
The judges approved the parents' request for a hearing Friday in a short, unsigned order.
Last May, the Supreme Court declined to hear another case involving Montgomery County Public Schools. Another group of parents sued the school district in 2020 over policies supporting transgender students.
“Imposing controversial gender ideologies on 3-year-old children without their parents' permission violates our nation's traditions, parental rights, and basic human rights,” Beckett Vice President and Senior Counsel Eric Baxter said Friday. It's an insult to decency.” in a statement. “Courts need to be clear: Parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding when and how to introduce sensitive issues around gender and sexuality to their children.”
A spokesperson for Montgomery County Public Schools did not respond to a request for comment.
The dispute was one of five cases the Supreme Court agreed to hear Friday. Unless the court takes up future cases as scheduled, this is expected to be the last case the justices will consider this term.
The justices said they would also take up disputes over students' disability claims and would take on cases involving disability benefits.
Contributed by Zach Schoenfeld.
