The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of Maryland parents who sued a school board over its refusal to allow elementary school children to be taken out of classes with LGBTQ-themed storybooks.
In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines Friday, the justices overturned a lower court ruling that found the parents needed to show that their kids were being coerced to act differently than their religious beliefs. The high court concluded that the parents “have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction” because they “are likely to succeed in their challenge to the Board’s policies.”
The ruling is not the final decision in the matter, as the case will head back to the lower courts for further review.
AFP via Getty Images
“A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
“And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.”
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) approved certain LGBTQ-themed curriculum books in late 2022. Initially, MCPS allowed an opt-out for parents with religious concerns, but by March of 2023, it reversed course, citing concerns about absenteeism and administrative burdens.
A group of parents from Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox faiths sued the school district, arguing the lack of an opt-out system trampled upon their religious rights as parents.
The reading material in question included “Pride Puppy,” a picture book aimed at three- and four-year-olds that instructs kids to look for items they might find at a gay pride parade, such as underwear, lip rings, drag kings, and late gay liberation activist Marsha Johnson, whom critics noted was once a sex worker.
Other books that were part of the curriculum delved into transgenderism — such as “Intersection Allies,” meant for K-5 students, explains transgender and non-binary concepts, while asking the question, “What pronouns fit you?”
“What Are Your Words?” tells students in a similar age range that one’s pronouns can “change like the weather” and follows one child who briefly embraces “they/them” pronouns.
In “Born Ready,” a little boy gets confused about how his sister is transitioning into a boy, prompting the mother to inform him that “not everything needs to make sense.”
The MCPS board provided teachers with guidance to inform students that “not everyone is a boy or girl,” according to the plaintiffs.
“Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative,” Alito wrote. “They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”
“High school students may understand that widespread approval of a practice does not necessarily mean that everyone should accept it, but very young children are most unlikely to appreciate that fine point,” he added.
“[T]he storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender. And the Board has specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. That goes far beyond mere ‘exposure.’”
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the dissent, claiming the majority “invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’ themes ‘contrary to the religious principles’ that parents wish to instill in their children.”
“Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parent’s religious beliefs,” she argued. “If that is sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny, then little is not.”
“The result will be chaos for this Nation’s public schools. Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.”
Sotomayor also argued that the Supreme Court has never previously “held that mere exposure to concepts inconsistent with one’s religious beliefs could give rise to a First Amendment claim.”
Justices had largely signed their leanings in the case during oral arguments in April. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who described himself as a “lifelong resident” of Montgomery Country, expressed that he was “a bit mystified” over the controversy.
