麻豆精品

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 麻豆精品 Newsletter

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared to lean in favor of parents who say Maryland鈥檚 largest district violated their religious freedom rights when it stopped letting them exempt their young children from lessons featuring books with LGBTQ characters.

In 2023, Montgomery County Public Schools ended an opt-out policy, prompting the parents, backed by religious freedom advocates, to take the district to court. 

A federal appeals court agreed with the suburban Washington district鈥檚 argument that it didn鈥檛 coerce the students to change their beliefs about gender and sexuality simply by exposing them to stories with gay or transgender characters. But some conservative justices in Tuesday鈥檚 oral arguments agreed with the families, who say the books alone pose a burden on parents鈥� religious beliefs and the district clearly intends to 鈥渄isrupt鈥� students鈥� thinking about issues like same-sex marriage and whether someone can change their pronouns. 

鈥淲hat is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?鈥� Justice Samuel Alito asked Alan Schoenfeld, who represents the school district. As an example of a 鈥渃lear moral message,鈥� he pointed to Uncle Bobby鈥檚 Wedding, a picture book focusing on a girl鈥檚 feelings of jealousy when her favorite uncle gets married to another man. 鈥淚t doesn’t just say 鈥楲ook, Uncle Bobby and Jamie are getting married.鈥� It expresses the idea [that] this is a good thing.鈥� 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, warned that because the case is still at such an early stage 鈥� the parents just want to restore the opt-out policy for now 鈥� the court shouldn鈥檛 be making a decision that would force districts nationwide to adopt such policies for curriculum that could offend parents鈥� religious beliefs.

鈥淚nstead of having democratically elected representatives and experts in the field making the decision about which books should be taught to kids in the classroom, you have federal judges flipping through the picture books and deciding whether these are appropriate for 5 year olds,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t seems pretty troubling, because ordinarily, public education has been the subject of local control.鈥�

鈥楴ot a sea change鈥�

The case, brings together multiple issues at the forefront of President Donald Trump鈥檚 conservative agenda: parental rights, religious freedom and eliminating what Trump calls from the nation鈥檚 schools. Sarah Harris, principal deputy solicitor general argued, for the government, saying that other states, including Pennsylvania, Arizona and Hawaii have 鈥渧ery broad鈥� opt-out policies. She rejected the school district鈥檚 position that such arrangements pose administrative challenges for schools and teachers.

鈥淚t’s something that schools have done for a long time,鈥� she said 鈥淚t is not a sea change.鈥�

The Montgomery County board, however, abruptly decided to end opt outs in 2023, said Eric Baxter, an attorney with Becket, a law firm that represents the parents and focuses on religious liberty. That鈥檚 when the conflict began. 

District leaders, Baxter said, chose books that are 鈥渃learly indoctrinating students鈥� to believe differently. Because the district allows opt outs from sex education classes, the families argue the same option should be available when teachers plan to read the books in class.

The district chose the books to be inclusive and teach respect toward those with different beliefs and lifestyles, Schoenfeld said. The opt outs, according to the district, were increasingly disruptive, with at least one school seeing 鈥渄ozens鈥� of requests. Some parents kept students home for the entire day to avoid the readings. District officials maintain that they鈥檙e not discriminating against religion because they ended opt outs for all reasons, not just religious ones. 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of the six conservatives on the court, focused on written materials that advise teachers how to respond in class if, for example, a student says 鈥淎 girl can only like boys because she’s a girl.鈥�

The guidance instructs teachers to make comments like 鈥淲hen we’re born, people make a guess about our gender and label us boy or girl based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right sometimes; they’re wrong.鈥� 

Those statements, Barrett said, 鈥渟eem to be more about influence and 鈥� shaping of ideas and less about communicating respect.鈥� 

But Schoenfeld said there鈥檚 not enough evidence in the record showing how teachers ultimately used the books in the classroom to determine if coercion actually occurred. 

Justice Kavanaugh, who said he鈥檚 a 鈥渓ifelong resident鈥� of Montgomery County, expounded on the religious diversity of the community and questioned why the district took such a hardline position. 

鈥淵ou see religious building after religious building. I’m surprised 鈥� that this is the hill we’re gonna die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty,鈥� he said. The goal in such cases, he said, has been to 鈥渓ook for the win-win鈥� 鈥� to accommodate religious beliefs while still allowing the government to pursue its goals.

鈥淭hey’re not asking you to change what’s taught in the classroom,鈥� he said about the parents. 鈥淭hey’re only seeking to be able to walk out.鈥� 

鈥榃here the court is headed鈥�

While the record in the case is limited, it does include a comment from Board Member Lynne Harris, who said parents don鈥檛 have a right to 鈥渕icromanage their child鈥檚 public-school experience鈥� and are free to send their children to a private religious school if they disagree with what鈥檚 taught. 

Joshua Dunn, executive director of the Institute of American Civics at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, is looking to the court鈥檚 past religious freedom cases as a guide to how the justices might view this debate. Former Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, foreshadowed how far the conservative wing of the court might go to accommodate the rights of families to practice their faith, Dunn said.

In a 2017 Missouri case, , Breyer sided with the conservative majority in ruling in favor for a church that was turned down for a state grant. To him, it was just obviously wrong to deny Trinity Lutheran access to a grant program for recycled rubber for a playground,鈥� Dunn said. 鈥淚t had nothing to do with religion.鈥�

But his views changed in and 鈥� two cases focusing on public funds for tax credits or vouchers at faith-based schools. In Carson, Breyer asked whether 鈥減ublic schools must pay equivalent funds to parents who wish to send their children to religious schools.鈥� 

Maryland doesn鈥檛 have a private school choice program, and vouchers for parents who object to the books on religious grounds are not on the table in this case, Dunn said. But he聽wonders whether the conservative justices could apply the same logic that concerned Breyer.聽

In other words, would the court reason that because the government funds education for students whose parents don鈥檛 object to the books, it should be obligated to fund schooling for those who oppose such materials on religious grounds? 

鈥淎ll you have to do,鈥� he said 鈥渋s be able to read and count noses and you can see where the court is headed.鈥� 

For now, advocates on the district鈥檚 side want the court to show restraint and deny the parents鈥� request to reinstate the opt-out policy.

鈥淭hey’re trying to get a court-mandated order that any parent can opt their children out of class rather than have virtually any type of exposure to books with LGBTQ characters,鈥� said Eileen Hershenov, chief legal officer for PEN America, a free speech organization that filed a brief in the case and advocates against restrictions on books. 鈥淚t’s a recipe for administrative nightmares for public schools with the likely result that students will have little or no exposure to families or characters other than those that offend no religious sensibilities.鈥�

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 麻豆精品鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.