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

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

27 minutes ago
A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments in Trump's bid to erase his hush money conviction
NEW YORK -- President Donald Trump's quest to erase his criminal conviction heads to a federal appeals court Wednesday. It's one way he's trying to get last year's hush money verdict overturned. A three-judge panel is set to hear arguments in Trump's long-running fight to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court, where he could then try to have the verdict thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. The Republican is asking the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the federal appeals court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. The 2nd Circuit should 'determine once and for all that this unprecedented criminal prosecution of a former and current President of the United States belongs in federal court," Trump's lawyers wrote in a court filing. The Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted Trump's case, wants it to stay in state court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If Trump loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, arguing that Trump's historic prosecution violated his constitutional rights and ran afoul of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided about a month after the hush money trial ended. The ruling reins in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. In a four-page ruling, Hellerstein wrote that nothing about the high court's ruling affected his prior conclusion that hush money payments at issue in Trump's case 'were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.' Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that prosecutors erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. Trump's former criminal defense lawyer Todd Blanche is now the deputy U.S. attorney general, the Justice Department's second-in-command. Another of his lawyers, Emil Bove, has a high-ranking Justice Department position. The trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Trump's requests to throw out the conviction on presidential immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Appearing by video at his sentencing, Trump called the case a 'political witch hunt,' 'a weaponization of government' and 'an embarrassment to New York.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court of Georgia overturned four rules from the State Election Board
AUGUSTA, Ga. (WJBF) – The Supreme Court of Georgia overturned four rules from the State Election Board. Those measures were approved just before the presidential elections last year. So, what does this mean for local voting? When the SEB passed seven new election rules, they faced a legal challenge. The Fulton County Superior Court ruled them unlawful. The Supreme Court has now ruled that four of the seven rules are invalid. 'The State Elections Board had passed some rules. There was a lawsuit. So, they adjoined the rules, and they appealed it, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision,' said Travis Doss, Executive Director for the Richmond County Board of Elections. The rules that are now invalid are the reasonable inquiry rule, the hand count rule, the drop box ID rule, and the examination rule. The only rule that was upheld out of the seven is video surveillance of absentee drop boxes outside of voting hours. The other two rules, regarding poll watchers and daily reporting, have been sent back to the trial court. 'Now, there were two rules that the Supreme Court said were fine. One has to do with video surveillance of droboxes, and another one had to do with posting results to the website. We've been posting results to the website already,' said Doss. Richmond County Board of Elections Director Travis Doss says this will not change anything for voters because the rules were never implemented. 'I'm currently president of the association of voter registration and election officials. And we had kind of fought against these rules. Only because they were too close to the election. So, the court did adjoin them so they couldn't be used,' said Doss. Doss says he is happy to finally have closure. 'The good thing about the decision for the Supreme Court. It kind of gives a definitive answer. We were sort of in limbo after the rules were passed in November after there was the lawsuit,' said Doss. The primary for the Public Service Commission is currently underway in Richmond County, with early voting taking place until this Friday and Election Day on Tuesday, June 17th. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Community seeks clarity on First Amendment rights
EVANSVILLE, Ind. (WEHT) – Over 100 people gather to discuss the First Amendment, with the goal of leaving with a better understanding of their rights.'I wanted to find out what's going on', says Susan protests continue across the country, Evansville residents are seeking clarity on their fundamental Hansen is one of many who have questions. Hansen says, 'It seems like the current president is trying to revert back to the old, old school way of things and deny us our rights and our abilities, and even to constrict us and overrule and run everything and there's supposed to be a division of power, and he is violating that division of powers, that's what I feel like.'The First Amendment at its basic definition protects the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the right to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of Professor Dr. James MacLeod, with the University of Evansville says, the First Amendment is the most says, 'Our students are certainty seeing what's been happening around the country to other students protesting over various issues and they are concerned about what would happen, what could happen on our campus.' McLeod adds, 'I'm sure that our students are concerned, deeply concerned by their friends and colleagues who are international students.'Attorney Charles Berger also served as a panelist, a man who's studied the Bill of Rights since he was in high emphasized how now is the time to have the in-depth says, 'They need to let their government know they're not happy with what's happening. They should peacefully assemble at the risk of being harmed. I mean, in order to preserve freedom, you have to take risk and if you're not willing to take risk, then you will lose your freedom.' The panel was hosted by BRIDGE, an organization that focuses on building respect and integrity in diverse greater Evansville. The League of Women Voters of Southwestern Indiana also help partner to make this event happen. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.