Featured

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

Politics
Children Books That Are Fighting For Sur BETHESDA, MD - MAY 21: Children Books That Are Fi
By Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post Via Getty Images

The Supreme Court appeared on Tuesday to lean in favor of a group of religious parents who sued a Maryland school board over its refusal to allow their K-5 children to opt out of LGBTQ+ curriculum. 

In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education announced new “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. Some of the reading materials include The Pride Puppy, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope.

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?”

“The [school] board does not dispute that under its theory, it could compel instruction using pornography, and parents would have no rights,” argued Eric Baxter, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty attorney representing the parents.

“The First Amendment demands more. Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted during oral arguments that the high court “[does not] have to decide whether you get the opt-out.”

“We just have to decide if the 4th Circuit accurately defined what a burden is,” she said. 

Barrett later seemed worried that the LGBTQ+ materials were not only about exposing young students to different ideas, but about trying to make student think “this is the right view of the world” and “how you should think.” 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh at one point said he is “a bit mystified, as a lifelong resident of the county, how it came to this.”

Later, Kavanaugh told the school board’s attorney, Alan Schoenfeld:

I guess I’m just not understanding. The whole goal, I think, of some of our religion precedents is to look for the win/win, to look for the situation where you can respect the religious beliefs and accommodate the religious beliefs while the state or city or whatever it may be can pursue its goals.

“And, here, they’re not asking you to change what’s taught in the classroom. They’re not asking you to change that at all. A lot of the rhetoric suggests that they might have — that — that they were trying to do that, but that’s not what they’re trying to do,” he continued. “They’re only seeking to be able to walk out so that they don’t have — so the parents don’t have their children exposed to these things that are contrary to their own beliefs.”

Justice Samuel Alito pressed Schoenfeld on why the schools decided not to accommodate students when they have opt-outs for other materials and subjects.

“Well, the — the plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum. They’re just saying, look, we want out. Why isn’t that feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?” Alito said.

At another point, Justice Neil Gorsuch essentially got Schoenfeld to admit that the school board included the books in the curriculum to “influence” young minds.

“So Pride Puppy was the book that was used for the prekindergarten curriculum. That’s no longer in the curriculum,” Schoenfeld said.

“That’s the one where they are supposed to look for the leather and things — and bondage, things like that, right?” Gorsuch asked.

“It’s not bondage,” Schoenfeld replied. “It’s a woman in leather.”

“A sex worker?” Gorsuch pressed.

Justice Barrett later interjected and said it was a “drag queen,” to which Schoenfeld said “correct.”

“Yeah. Okay. And your — you’ve included these in the English language curriculum rather than the human sexuality curriculum to influence students, is that fair? That’s what the district court found. Do you agree with that?” Gorsuch continued.

“I think, to the extent the district court found that it was to influence, it was to influence them towards civility, the natural consequence of being exposed to —” Schoenfeld replied.

“Whatever, but to influence them,” Gorsuch interjected.

The liberal-leaning justices seemed concerned about how to define “burden.”

“How do we make very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Baxter.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated that parents “can choose to put their kid elsewhere” instead of public schools if they do not believe with what is being taught.

“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,” she admitted. “You have a choice, you don’t have to send your kids to that school.”

Jackson also claimed: “We don’t at this moment, based on the record you’ve provided, know that these books aren’t just sitting on the shelves.”

However, the question had already been addressed early in oral arguments when conservative leaning Justice Clarence Thomas asked Baxter 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 — 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.”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.

via April 23rd 2025

  2. MixedTimes.com
  3. Politics
  4. SCOTUS Appears Poised to Side with Maryland Parents Over Opt-Outs for LGBTQ+ Books