Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Mandatory LGBTQ+ Indoctrination: ‘You Don’t Have to Send Your Kid to That School’

Liberal-leaning Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — who was unable to define what a woman is in her confirmation hearing — appeared to side with a Maryland school district on Tuesday that is attempting to force young children to participate in LGBTQ+ curriculum, despite objections from parents.

In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education announced “inclusivity” books for K-5 students and took away parental notice and opt-outs for story books that discuss topics like “gender” transitions, pride parades, and preferred pronouns. In 2023, a federal court upheld a lower court decision siding with Maryland’s largest school district, and the mix of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish parents appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in January.

In their petition, parents ultimately asked the Supreme Court to answer: “Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?”

RELATED: 26 States, Lawmakers, Faith Groups Support Parents at SCOTUS Fighting Grade-School LGBTQQIAAP2S+ Lessons

“We don’t at this moment, based on the record you’ve provided, know that these books aren’t just sitting on the shelves,” Justice Jackson said of the reading materials, which include The Pride Puppy, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope.

It is an assertion that had already been addressed early in oral arguments on Tuesday when conservative-leaning Justice Clarence Thomas asked Eric Baxter, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty attorney representing the parents, how the record “shows that the children are more than merely exposed to the — these sorts of things in the storybooks?”

“We know that the teachers are required to use the books. When the books were first introduced in August of 2022, the Board suggested they be used five times before the end of the year,” Baxter said, citing transcripts and evidence submitted to the court. “One of the schools, the Sherwood School, in June, for Pride Month, said that they were going to read one book each day to celebrate Pride Month. The Board’s own testimony through Superintendent Hazel said that the books must be used as part of the instruction and … that discussion will ensue.”

“That was the entire point of withdrawing the opt-outs and removing even notifying parents. They’re not even allowed to know,” Baxter explained. “The Board said in that statement it was so that every student would be taught from the inclusivity storybooks.”

Even so, Jackson told Baxter that “you actually have to have a factual record that is the basis for the court to make a determination in your favor that some conduct that you’re complaining about needs to be enjoined.”

“And what’s confusing to me and hard—really hard—in this situation, is that we have a lot of sincerely held beliefs and concerns and children and principles, and I see all of those things and so really want to be careful about making the pronouncement,” she said, before stating that, “at this moment, based on the record you’ve provided, know that these books aren’t just sitting on the shelves.” [emphasis added].

READ MORE: SCOTUS Appears Poised to Side with Maryland Parents Over Opt-Outs for LGBTQ+ Books

Baxter tried to set the record straight although Jackson repeatedly cut him off.

“I disagree, your honor,” he said. “The record is undisputed, and I again will refer you to district court transcript…”

Jackson interrupted, asking if Baxter thought the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to write: “We don’t have any information about how any teacher or school employee has actually used any of the books.”

“The Court of Appeals did not dispute that some of the books have to be used, and we have all of…” Baxter began to reply.

Jackson again cut him off and said the Court Circuit ruled “that we don’t know ‘what any child has been taught in conjunction with their use.’”

“So, are you saying that you do have affidavits and information about teachers in the classroom and what they’ve taught children of different ages about these books?” Jackson asked.

“Yes, we do,” he answered. “All of our clients have, in their declarations, they describe which books were going to be read to their children.”

Jackson cut off Baxter a third time asking: “Were the clients in the classroom?”

Baxter replied that the parents were not in the classroom but noted: “We don’t have to wait until the injury has happened to get relief.”

Later in the hearing, Jackson asked Baxter to explain how a school forcing a child to learn about certain topics is “a burden on the parent if they have the option to send their kid elsewhere?”

“In that situation, I guess I’m struggling to see how it burdens a parent’s religious exercise if the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with. You have a choice. You don’t have to send your kid to that school. You can put them in another situation. You can homeschool them,” she said.

Well, Your Honor, the world we live in in this case is that most parents don’t have that option. They have two working parents. They can’t afford to send to private school,” Baxter replied.

“Yes, as a matter of practicality, absolutely,” Jackson said.

“And that’s the reality for our parents,” Baxter continued.

The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on X @thekat_hamilton.