logo
Groups nationwide eye Supreme Court hearing on Montgomery County LGBTQ books in schools case

Groups nationwide eye Supreme Court hearing on Montgomery County LGBTQ books in schools case

Yahoo22-04-2025

The U.S. Supreme Court. (File photo by Danielle E. Gaines/Maryland Matters)
When the Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in Mahmoud v. Taylor, it will be considering whether Montgomery County parents have a right, on religious grounds, to opt their children out of classes in county schools that use LGBTQ+ friendly books.
But to the scores of religious, legal and educational groups across the country who have filed friend-of-the-court briefs, it's a case with national implications.
'Whatever rule the Court promulgates in this case will apply far beyond the circumstances of this dispute,' says a 30-page brief filed on behalf of the School Superintendents Association, Consortium of State School Boards Associations, Council of the Great City Schools and National School Attorneys Association. That brief does not support either side in the dispute, but asks the justices to tread carefully.
Most of the other briefs, however, are decidedly on one side or the other: With the parents who argue that the county policy infringes on their right to raise their children according to their religion, or with the school board that says the books are part of an inclusive curriculum and are not coercive or targeting any religion.
The case began at the start of the 2022-23 school year, when the county unveiled a list of 'LGBTQ+-inclusive texts for use in the classroom,' including books for grades as low as kindergarten and pre-K. After initially saying that parents could opt their children out of lessons that included those and other books, the school board reversed course in March 2023 and said opt-outs would not be allowed beginning in the 2023-24 school year.
Parents are allowed to opt their children out of parts of sex education classes, but not other parts of the curriculum, like language arts.
The parents sued the school board in May 2023, saying the inability to opt their children out of the classes infringes on their First Amendment freedom of religion rights. They also wanted the schools to notify them when lessons involving the books were coming up, and to plan alternative lessons for their children.
But school officials claim the books were not part of 'explicit instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in elementary school, and that no student or adult is asked to change how they feel about these issues.'
In its December filing that urged the Supreme Court to reject the case, the county said, 'MCPS (Montgomery County Public Schools) believes that representation in the curriculum creates and normalizes a fully inclusive environment for all students and supports a student's ability to empathize, connect, and collaborate with diverse peers and encourages respect for all.' It went on to say 'teachers are not permitted to use the storybooks to enforce a particular viewpoint.'
Lower courts have rejected the parents request for a preliminary injunction, with a divided panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the county policy did not have the coercion required to make it a burden on religious exercise.
In their petition to the Supreme Court, the parents cited a few of the elementary-aged books the school board includes as 'LGBTQ-inclusive' and the guidance for teachers that went with each:
'Born Ready,' a story about Penelope, a student who identifies as a boy. 'Teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, doctors guess about our gender, but we know ourselves best';
'Love, Violet,' a story about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance. 'Teachers are encouraged to have a think-aloud moment to ask students how it feels when they don't just like but like like someone'; and
'Intersection Allies,' a picture book for children to ponder what it means to be 'transgender' or 'non-binary' and asks, 'what pronouns fit you?'
Mark Graber, a regents professor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey Law School in Baltimore, said in an interview Monday that a Supreme Court decision in favor of the petitioners, or parents, would create 'an administrative nightmare.'
'There are a lot of religions out there. Schools have to figure out what violates religion, what parents they have to contact,' he said.
Graber said the court will have to determine whether county teaches the topics 'as secular' subjects.
'The parent has the right to go in and say, 'What are you teaching?' Public schools can teach one plus one equals two, regardless of what your religion says about the simpleness of mathematics,' he said. 'They can teach about different forms of couples, regardless of what religion says about the simpleness of different kinds of relationships.
'The crucial thing is public schools must teach it as secular,' he said. 'They may not praise or condemn any religion for holding opinions consistent with the public schools, or inconsistent.'
Even though parents have lost in lower courts on their preliminary injunction request, Graber said it makes senses for them to press the case with the current Supreme Court, given the justices' openness to free exercise claims.
'The court has been extraordinarily sympathetic to free exercise claims brought by evangelical Christians,' he said. 'They think they got the most sympathetic court they've ever had, so why not [petition the court]?'
The fact the high court will be hearing the case based only 'on an undeveloped and untested, preliminary injunction record,' and not hearings on the full merits of case in lower courts, was concerning to the school groups that filed the brief in support of neither side of the case.
'There are great risks presented by asking the Court to potentially adopt new rules for evaluating Free Exercise claims or constitutionalizing notice and opt out requirements,' said the brief from the School Superintendents Association, Consortium of State School Boards Associations, Council of the Great City Schools and National School Attorneys Association.
One other brief that supports neither side in the dispute came from the California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM), a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that focuses on 'eradicating the disparaging treatment of Hinduism' in that state's public schools.
The organization's brief proposes the court adopt a four-part test to determine if school policies violate free exercise rights: Does the curriculum material negate religious beliefs or practices?; does the curriculum material itself or the process through which it was adopted reflect targeted hostility toward religion or a particular religion?; does the material or the adoption process lack neutrality toward a particular religion?; and is the curriculum material coercive?
'The outcome of this case is going to clearly affect my client's rights, but whatever test the court comes up with … we have ideas in what would make sense in litigating the case,' Glenn Katon, counsel representing CAPEEM, said in an interview Monday.
'We're not there to help either party. We're there to try and get the court to adopt the test that makes sense, that will help Hindus get treated fairly in California,' he said. 'This case is very important for schools in California [and] even across the country.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Montana Supreme Court says several state abortion curbs are unconstitutional
Montana Supreme Court says several state abortion curbs are unconstitutional

CBS News

time24 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Montana Supreme Court says several state abortion curbs are unconstitutional

Helena, Mont. — - Montana's Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that struck down as unconstitutional several laws restricting abortion access, including a ban beyond 20 weeks of gestation. The measures approved by Republican lawmakers in 2021 had been blocked since a judge issued a preliminary injunction against them that year. While the case was pending, voters passed an initiative that enshrined the right to abortions in the Montana Constitution. Justices said in Monday's ruling that the state constitution included a "right to be left alone" and have access to abortions. They said that right wasn't affected by a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended a half-century of nationwide abortion rights. The Montana Senate debates a bill during transmittal week in the state Capitol on March 5, 2025, in Helena. Thom Bridge/Independent Record via AP The Montana laws also included a prohibition against telehealth prescriptions of abortion medication, a 24-hour waiting period after giving informed consent, and a requirement for providers to give patients the option of viewing an ultrasound or listening to the fetal heart tone. Planned Parenthood of Montana challenged the measures. Justices cited a 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling that said the state constitution's right to privacy includes a woman's right to obtain an abortion before the fetus is viable from the provider of her choice. The state argued that the 1999 ruling was wrongly decided, and has tried unsuccessfully on several occasions to get the Montana Supreme Court to overturn it. The Legislature in 2023 passed another slate of bills seeking to limit abortion access. Last year's initiative to make abortion a constitutional right in the state passed with backing from 58% of voters. An anti-abortion group called the Montana Family Foundation on Monday filed a lawsuit challenging the voter-approved initiative. The group claims voters who registered on Election Day were denied the chance to fully review the initiative because the ballot included only a summary. The full text was in a pamphlet mailed to registered voters.

Appeals court to take up Trump's challenge to his criminal hush money conviction

time36 minutes ago

Appeals court to take up Trump's challenge to his criminal hush money conviction

Just over a year after Donald Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, an appeals court is set to hear the president's bid to move his case to federal court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has scheduled oral arguments Wednesday to consider whether to move the president's criminal hush money case from state to federal court. Trump was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a "scheme" to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct. Trump's lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included "official acts" undertaken while he was president, giving the president broad immunity for his actions and the right to remove the case to federal court. They say that the Supreme Court's landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts -- which was decided after Trump was convicted in May -- would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction. "The fact that it was not until after the conclusion of his state criminal trial that the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision defining the contours of presidential immunity -- including a broad evidentiary immunity prohibiting prosecutors from inviting a jury to probe a President's official acts, as President Trump's removal notice alleges occurred here -- supplies good cause for post-trial removal," Department of Justice lawyers argued in an amicus brief filed with the court. Trump decried the prosecution as politically motivated and successfully delayed his sentencing multiple times before New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, sentenced the former president to an unconditional discharge -- the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law -- saying it was the "only lawful sentence" to prevent "encroaching upon the highest office in the land." "I did my job, and we did our job," Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case, said following Trump's conviction. "There are many voices out there, but the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken." Bragg has pushed back on Trump's attempt to remove the case from state court, arguing that a case cannot be moved to federal court after sentencing. "These arguments ignore statutory indicia that Congress intended for removal of criminal cases to happen before sentencing by anticipating that essential federal proceedings will take place prior to a final criminal judgment," prosecutors have argued. Trump's appeal will be heard by a panel of three federal judges, each of whom was nominated to the bench by Democratic presidents. With Trump's former defense attorneys now serving top roles at the Department of Justice, the president will now be represented by former Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall of the elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. In an usual step, lawyers with the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Trump's request. "The United States has a strong and direct interest in the issues presented in this appeal," they argued. If the appeals court grants Trump's request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom. In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Moving the case into federal court could also open up the possibility that Trump could potentially pardon himself.

Methodists oppose Indiana's attacks on higher education
Methodists oppose Indiana's attacks on higher education

Indianapolis Star

time43 minutes ago

  • Indianapolis Star

Methodists oppose Indiana's attacks on higher education

Gov. Mike Braun, Attorney General Todd Rokita and Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith are engaging in a terrible behavior directed toward Indiana's institutions of higher education. Braun, for his part, acted autocratically to change Indiana University's Board of Trustees structure and supports the closure of decades-long programs to address systemic racism. Meanwhile, Rokita has threatened Butler, DePauw and Notre Dame over support for diversity, equity and inclusion. Last weekend, Indiana United Methodists took a bold stance against their behavior and in support of inclusion and justice. 'We aspire to extend our support for institutions of higher education facing governmental threats. Attacks from state officials have been attacks on institutions of higher education, a resolution passed by the Indiana United Methodists said. 'It's important that we stand with all the institutions of higher education… [and] we will continue to struggle against the systemic racism that pervades our nation and state.' While university administrators at state institutions remain silent, or cower in fear, failing to stand for academic freedom, inclusion and the common good, at least the United Methodists have taken a stand. As longtime allies of higher education, they have provided a word of hope for the future rather than seeking a return to the bigotries of the past. The universities under attack have deep and historic ties to the faith traditions of the Disciples of Christ, the United Methodist Church and Catholic churches. In attacking these universities, Rokita has ignored the First Amendment, which sets out the separation of church and state. In Indiana nearly 700 congregations and well over 70,000 members are counted as United Methodists. The UMC vote condemning threats to our universities may not have made the newspapers, but our state politicians should know Hoosiers are soundly rejecting their bullying.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store