Supreme Court Considers Case of Parents Seeking to Exempt Their Children from Pro-LGBT Educational Materials
Following the cancellation of the opt-out option by a Maryland county’s school board, lower courts have refused to reinstate it.
On April 22, the Supreme Court appeared open to Maryland parents seeking to exempt their young children from being taught with storybooks that advocate LGBT lifestyles.
The justices deliberated for 2.5 hours in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor.
This case traces back to November 2022, when the Montgomery County Board of Education enacted a new policy mandating “LGBTQ-inclusive” storybooks for elementary school students that endorse themes like gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex relationships among children.
Initially, parents were informed that they could opt out of these readings for their children, but the board revised this policy in March 2023, eliminating the opt-out option starting from the 2023–2024 academic year.
According to the petition, “If parents disapproved of what was taught to their elementary school children, their only alternatives were to enroll them in private schools or choose homeschooling.”
Related Stories
Numerous parents, mainly from Eastern Orthodox Christian and Muslim communities, attended board meetings to express their beliefs that their religions mandate keeping young children away from lessons about gender and sexuality that contradict their faith.
After the board members accused these parents of propagating “hate” and compared them to “white supremacists” and “xenophobes,” the parents filed a lawsuit when the board refused to address their concerns.
On August 24, 2023, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman rejected the parents’ request for an injunction to halt the cancellation of the opt-out option.
The panel further observed that there was no proof that the revised policy infringed upon the parents’ free exercise of religion.
During the April 22 oral arguments, the parents’ attorney, Eric Baxter, informed the justices that there was no justification for refusing opt-outs based on religious beliefs.
“Ultimately, it is parents, not school boards, who should have the final say in these spiritual matters,” emphasized Baxter, who serves as vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Baxter pointed out that the board had initially indicated the books would be read five times throughout the school year, but one school later declared intentions to feature a different book each day.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor inquired about the potential limits of opt-out requests.
She noted instances where some parents objected to recognizing women for their achievements, arguing that women should not work outside the home.
Justice Elena Kagan suggested that if a student shared about having two mothers during a show-and-tell, other classmates might want to opt out.
Sotomayor questioned whether exposure to books depicting same-sex relationships could be deemed coercive.
Baxter asserted that the parents opposed such books as their faith teaches that young children should not encounter sexual topics without accompanying moral guidance.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a lifelong resident of Montgomery County, expressed his confusion regarding the evolution of the policy.
Justice Samuel Alito remarked that the parents in this situation were seeking not to alter the board’s curriculum, but simply to opt out.
He summarized the board’s stance as saying that if parents disapproved of the books, then “too bad.”
This story is still developing and will be updated.
