Supreme Court Hears Custodians of Values: Parents Demand Right to Opt Children Out of LGBTQ School Lessons

Counsel representing a coalition of parents is advocating for the ability to opt their children out of LGBTQ-related curricula, framing the issue as one of fundamental parental rights.

Colten Stanberry, an attorney with Becket and counsel for the parents involved in the case, emphasized the need for parental involvement in educational decisions. He stated that if the school board is determined to make unique curriculum choices, parents should still have the opportunity to withdraw their children from those lessons. For Stanberry’s parent clients, the message is clear: preserve their role as primary decision-makers in their children’s education and ensure they are not excluded from the process.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court conducted oral arguments regarding the coalition’s fight against the school board’s policies that disregard parents’ wishes concerning the LGBTQ curriculum.

The pivotal case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, questions whether parents possess the right to be informed and to opt-out of specific book readings in elementary school that clash with their personal beliefs.

Clarifying Misconceptions Around Book Bans

Stanberry clarified that the case does not advocate for a ban on books. Instead, he asserts that parents are asking only to withdraw their children from classes when materials conflict with their beliefs. He remarked that the intent is not to limit teachers but to provide alternatives for families.

A coalition representing Jewish, Christian, and Muslim families with children in Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland initiated this lawsuit following the school board’s introduction of LGBTQ-themed books into its curriculum as part of a district-wide inclusivity initiative. This change came about concurrent with new state regulations aimed at promoting educational equity, as detailed in the petitioners’ brief submitted to the Supreme Court.

As outlined by the parents, the school board decided to include books featuring transgender and non-binary characters and narratives.

The Shift in Policy

The parents’ coalition observed that initially, the school board allowed opt-outs as per existing guidelines and Maryland law after receiving feedback from concerned parents regarding the new curriculum. However, following a public assurance that parents could opt-out, the school board purportedly reversed its policy without prior notification.

According to the petitioners’ brief, the school board stated that as of the 2023-2024 academic year, families would no longer have the option to withdraw from the curriculum or receive notice when certain books would be read in class.

Impacts on Parental Rights

The lawsuit asserts that the lack of notification and the inability to opt out of certain lessons infringes upon the rights protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The petition argues that this policy imposes undue burdens on the parents’ ability to guide their children’s religious education.

The parents referenced Wisconsin v. Yoder, a landmark 1972 Supreme Court ruling that recognized parental rights in directing their children’s educational experiences when such mandates conflict with their religious beliefs. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that requiring children to attend school past the eighth grade infringed upon parents’ rights.

Stanberry noted that while the case at hand may differ from Yoder, it centers around a fundamental parental right acknowledged by the Supreme Court for over five decades.

Counterarguments from the School Board

In its brief, the school board contends that there is no evidence that educators are directed to teach lessons on gender or sexuality linked to the newly included storybooks. They further assert that the books serve as options for literary discussions but are not mandatory for classroom instruction.

Moreover, the board underlined that teachers were not compelled to utilize the new books during lessons and were not provided any required discussion points or assignments connected to them.

The lower court dismissed the parents’ motion, ruling the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the opt-out policy imposed any burdens on their exercise of religion.

The Appeals Court Decision

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling, concluding that the parents failed to substantiate claims that the policy violated their constitutional rights.

Despite setbacks in the lower court, Stanberry expressed a sense of optimism and enthusiasm as the high court reviews the case.

He noted that while predicting outcomes is challenging, there is a hopeful sentiment surrounding the court’s engagement with the arguments presented.

School Board’s Response and Broader Implications

In a statement to the press, the school board maintained that its policy reflects a commitment to provide a respectful classroom environment that accommodates diverse student backgrounds. They argued that curricula promoting inclusivity do not infringe on religious freedoms.

Public Information Officer for the school, Liliana López, highlighted the belief that established laws provide a solid foundation for affirming the rulings made by lower courts. Regardless of the final decision, she noted the significance of having the case heard by the Supreme Court.

This case arrives at a time when educational reforms focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion are being emphasized in discussions surrounding policy changes at various educational levels. Furthermore, it follows numerous other religious and gender-related cases the Supreme Court has tackled recently.

A Call for Accommodation in a Pluralistic Society

Stanberry remarked that this case illustrates the desire of faith-based communities for reasonable accommodation within a society characterized by diverse beliefs.

With the Supreme Court agreeing to hear this case during its 2024-2025 term, the outcomes could set precedents regarding parental rights and the relationship between educational institutions and family values. As the case progresses, it serves as a critical moment in the ongoing discussion surrounding educational curricula and parental rights in the face of evolving societal norms.

Insights provided by various contributors have enriched this report, contributing to a broader understanding of the implications of this significant legal battle.