The Supreme Court seemed receptive on April 22 to Maryland parents who want to opt their young children out of having to be taught from storybooks that promote LGBT lifestyles.
The justices heard 2 1/2 hours of oral argument in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
The case goes back to November 2022, when the Montgomery County Board of Education mandated new “LGBTQ-inclusive” storybooks for elementary school students that promote gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex romance between young children.
Parents were initially told they could opt out on behalf of their children when the storybooks were read, the petition said. The board changed its policy in March 2023. Beginning with the 2023–2024 academic year, the opt-out option would no longer be in effect.
“If parents did not like what was taught to their elementary school kids, their only choice was to send them to private school or to homeschool,” the petition said.
Hundreds of parents, largely Eastern Orthodox Christians and Muslims, showed up at board meetings and testified that their respective religions required that young children not be exposed to instruction on gender and sexuality that was inconsistent with their religion.
After “parents emphasized how impressionable young children are and how they lack independent judgment to process such complex and sensitive issues,” the board members accused parents of promoting “hate” and likened them to “white supremacists” and “xenophobes,” according to the petition.
The parents sued after the board declined to accommodate them, arguing that they had a constitutional right to opt out of such instruction.
On Aug. 24, 2023, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman denied the parents’ application for an injunction to block the cancellation of the opt-out option.
The panel also found there was no evidence that the renewed policy burdened the parents’ right to free exercise of religion.
The parents’ attorney, Eric Baxter, told the justices during the April 22 oral argument that there is no basis for denying opt-outs for religious reasons.
“Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters,” said Baxter, who is vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Baxter said that when the books were introduced, the board said they should be used five times during the school year, but then one of the schools said it planned to read one book each day.
Department of Justice attorney Sarah Harris said the board’s policy violates the Constitution.
Montgomery County offers “a free public education only if their children use books featuring same-sex relationships and transgender issues,” she said.
“That burdens parents of multiple faiths whose religious duty is to shield their young children from such content.”
The board’s attorney, Alan Schoenfeld, said the parents’ view of the case “would conscript courts into playing the role of school board, a task for which this Court has recognized they are ill suited.”
The Constitution does not require that opt-outs be provided “from anything someone finds religiously offensive [which] would mean public schools must find alternative classrooms, supervision for young students, and substitute lessons each time a potentially offensive topic arises,” Schoenfeld said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned how far opt-out requests could go.
She said some parents have objected to women being recognized for personal achievements because they believe women should stay home and not work.
Justice Elena Kagan said that if a student during a show-and-tell exercise wanted to discuss a child having two mothers, other students might seek to opt out.
Sotomayor asked if exposure to books depicting same-sex relationships could be considered coercion.
Baxter said the parents in the case would object to such books because their faith teaches that children should not be exposed to information about sex when they are young and innocent unless it is accompanied by moral instruction.
After Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that he is a lifelong resident of Montgomery County, Maryland, he said he was “mystified” at how the policy unfolded.
Kavanaugh told Schoenfeld that the attorney said repeatedly at the hearing that “the school board was democratically-elected, democratically-controlled, and being on the school board is a hard job.”
“But, you know, that can’t be the end of it, right?” the justice said. “We’re here to protect the liberty and the Constitution from the democratic excess.”
Schoenfeld said every school board “walks a tight rope, as this court has recognized and other courts have recognized. It’s a difficult job balancing the interests of a diverse community.”
Justice Samuel Alito said the parents in this case were not trying to change the board’s curriculum; they were just saying they wanted out.
The board’s position is that if parents object to the books, that’s “too bad,” Alito said.
At a White House press briefing the day of the argument, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Donald Trump hopes the Supreme Court “will do the right thing.”
“The president has been very clear. He stands on the side of parental rights and he believes that parents should have a greater say in their children’s education, in the content, if you will, that children are being exposed to in our public school system.”
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by the end of June.
