Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority Backs Parental Authority
The Supreme Court showcased its conservative majority this week, offering robust support for parents who argue for their religious liberty rights concerning elementary school reading materials. Parents claim these materials often contradict their faith, prompting them to seek the ability to opt their children out of specific content.
The case stems from a decision by the Montgomery County school board in Maryland to withdraw its original opt-out policy regarding books that address gender and sexuality issues. This change led to a federal lawsuit, with parents contesting the decision, citing the need to protect their children’s exposure to conflicting ideologies.
During an extensive two-and-a-half-hour oral argument session, justices wrestled with the question of whether parents have faced undue burdens in practicing their constitutional rights regarding their children’s education.
This case is one of three prominent religious-themed matters the Supreme Court will deliberate this term. The other cases involve tax exemptions for religious organizations and taxpayer funding for private religious charter schools, both set to be argued next week.
Supreme Court Justices Express Diverging Views
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, alongside her liberal colleagues, appeared to endorse the school district’s stance. She pointed out that a prior appeals court had denied a preliminary injunction that would have reinstated the opt-out policy temporarily.
Sotomayor stated, “They never reached the issue of whether or not there was disruption, or what the motive was for taking away the opt-out. What they decided was that there wasn’t coercion here, that there was mere exposure. I understood from the record that all that was required is that the books be put on the bookshelf. If that’s all that’s required, is that coercion?”
Conversely, Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern over the school board’s current position, advocating for a return to a policy that permits parental opt-outs, similar to practices employed in many schools across the United States.
“What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?” Alito inquired. He also scrutinized the content of the books brought up in the appeal, particularly those discussing same-sex marriage.
Alito remarked, “I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men. It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Public Sentiments Outside the Court
In 2022, the Montgomery County school district introduced new educational materials featuring LGBTQ+ characters and themes into its elementary curriculum as part of an initiative promoting inclusivity.
One notable book involved in this ongoing appeal is titled “Prince & Knight,” which presents a modern fairy tale about two males who fall in love while battling a dragon, ultimately deciding to marry. Another frequently mentioned title, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” recounts a young girl’s reaction to her favorite uncle’s engagement to another man.
The district’s refusal to allow parents to opt-out stands in stark contrast to policies applicable to older students, particularly regarding sex education classes.
Initially, the school board permitted parents to exclude their children from this curriculum. However, in March 2023, it reversed this decision, asserting that parents would not be notified before these books were introduced to their children’s classrooms. Officials cited increased absenteeism as a basis for the policy change.
Grace Morrison, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, expressed her concerns. She shared her experience as a parent navigating her child’s education while adhering to their religious beliefs. Morrison stated, “We felt as parents that we would present these things to our children like we always have, when they’re ready to receive them. And especially a child with special needs, it’s even more difficult for her to understand.”
She further emphasized, “Starting to present issues of gender ideology to a child like this could be extremely confusing and damaging, let alone to the faith that we’re raising her in.”
Legal Perspectives and Educational Standards
A federal appeals court sided with the school district, asserting that educators did not apply pressure on students to forsake their religious beliefs. The court mentioned that merely hearing about alternative views does not necessarily compel an individual to act contrary to their faith.
State representatives informed the justices that parents who enroll their children in public schools should not consider exposure to differing beliefs as coercive.
During the high court’s public session, discussions honed in on the practical implications of an opt-out policy. Justice Elena Kagan remarked on the possible ramifications, suggesting that implementing a rule favoring opt-outs could set a problematic precedent.
Justice Kagan noted, “Once we articulate a rule like that, it would be like, opt outs for everyone.”
Kagan also conveyed her apprehension regarding young children encountering age-inappropriate content, as seen in the materials offered in Montgomery County.
“I too was struck by these young kids’ picture books on matters concerning sexuality,” Kagan commented. This perspective aligns with concerns expressed by various parents who may not adhere to strict religious beliefs.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated his bewilderment over why the county repealed its original opt-out policy. Having personal ties to the area, he questioned the reasoning behind the abrupt change.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised important questions surrounding classroom inclusivity, interrogating the implications of allowing parents to opt-out based on their beliefs about individual students, such as transgender classmates.
Numerous briefs have been submitted by advocacy organizations representing divergent viewpoints, showcasing the contentious nature of this debate. Some educators argue that they should possess the freedom to design lesson plans reflecting the broader community’s values. However, they warn that catering to an abundance of individual religious objections could severely disrupt instructional integrity.
In contrast, parents and religious organizations advocate that children should not be made to partake in reading exercises that might contradict their family teachings. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the parents involved in the suit, labeled the school’s policy as “compelled instruction.”
The Trump administration has thrown its support behind the parents, stating in a formal brief that the school board’s no opt-out policy undermines parents’ abilities to uphold their religious convictions.
As the case, Mahmoud v. Taylor (24-297), unfolds, a ruling is anticipated by the court before the approaching summer recess in late June.
Kristine Parks and Jessica Sonkin contributed to this report.
