School Choice Could Defuse Culture War Fights
The Supreme Court is considering what may be the most important religious liberty case it will review this term. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, religious parents representing various faiths are suing Maryland's Montgomery County Public School District (MCPS) to let them opt their children out of elementary school storybook discussions surrounding themes such as sexuality and gender.
During oral arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned the plaintiffs' case. "I'm struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with," Jackson said. "You have a choice. You don't have to send your kid to that school. You can put them in another situation."
Practically speaking, many families don't have a viable educational alternative in Maryland. Without robust school choice, families on the losing end of zero-sum culture war clashes in public schools have little recourse.
Despite Jackson's claims to the contrary, most families cannot just put their children in "another situation." Only low-income students are eligible to receive Maryland's voucher, valued at less than $3,000 during the 2024–25 school year. This would cover just a fraction of the $14,500 average private elementary school tuition in Maryland.
The laws governing public school transfers in Maryland are some of the nation's weakest. Maryland is one of four states—along with Alaska, Maine, and North Carolina—that score 0 out of 100 points on Reason Foundation's scoresheet ranking states' K-12 open enrollment laws. This means the right to transfer to other public schools that have space isn't codified in state law.
Even if the school districts bordering MCPS let some of these students transfer, they could charge them out-of-pocket tuition, just like private schools. For instance, the neighboring Frederick County and Howard County Public Schools charged transfers $9,000 and $12,700, respectively, during the 2024–25 school year.
Moreover, no charter schools currently operate in Montgomery County (although its first is set to launch in Fall 2025). The school board has long opposed them, sparking criticism from the Maryland Board of Education.
When the district told families they could no longer opt their elementary-aged children out of the controversial lessons at the beginning of the 2023–24 school year, some parents chose to withdraw their children from MCPS at great personal cost. One family gave up their home and moved in with grandparents so they could afford private school tuition. Another family chose to homeschool their daughter with Down syndrome, sacrificing $25,000 in special services provided by MCPS.
Notably, plaintiffs in Mahmoud are asking only to opt out of specific lessons that violate their religious convictions. They aren't demanding that the district change its curriculum. Opt-out policies are a common practice in public education, and families in many states have long been able to withdraw their children from sex education classes.
That said, the advocates on Justice Jackson's side of the argument have a point: Where does it stop? There are many other areas where public schools might potentially adopt a curriculum that conflicts with individual religious beliefs. There may be a point at which it becomes overly burdensome for schools to let families opt out of everything they object to while still being enrolled.
Hence the need for school choice. When families don't have alternatives, public schools become a battleground for disputes. It becomes impossible to fully accommodate a diverse population with varying values and convictions.
The Court should rule in the plaintiffs' favor and let the parents opt out. But families shouldn't have to wait for a high court decision to have access to choice in education.
The post School Choice Could Defuse Culture War Fights appeared first on Reason.com.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The FBI raided the wrong house. The Supreme Court says the family is allowed to sue
A family whose home was mistakenly raided in the middle of the night by the FBI eight years ago will be permitted to continue their damages lawsuit after the Supreme Court on Thursday sent their case back to a federal appeals court for additional review. The outcome represents a technical win for the family, which had been barred by lower courts from suing the government over the incident. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. Curtrina Martin, her partner and her then-7-year-old son were startled awake in 2017 when a six-agent SWAT team – believing that they were targeting the home of a gang member – smashed her front door with a battering ram, detonated a flash-bang grenade and rushed into their suburban Atlanta home. At some point after Martin was dragged from the closet where she was hiding and held at gunpoint, agents realized they had the wrong house. The federal government is generally immune from lawsuits, but Congress carved out an exception for some situations involving negligent or wrongful acts of government employees. That law was amended in 1974, following a series of other high-profile raids at the wrong house, to expand the ability of Americans to sue federal law enforcement agents. But the Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the government, holding that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause barred tort claims against the federal government in circumstances where an official's actions had 'some nexus with furthering a federal policy' and could 'reasonably be characterized' as within the range of federal law. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law group that represented the Martin family, argued that outcome would completely undermine the intent of Congress. Lawmakers strengthened the Federal Tort Claims Act following a pair of high-profile wrong-house raids in Collinsville, Illinois, in the early 1970s. During arguments before the Supreme Court in April, the FBI's handling of the Martin raid drew particular scorn from Justice Gorsuch, a conservative and sometimes-skeptic of federal government power. 'You might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door,' an incredulous Gorsuch pressed the lawyer representing the Justice Department. 'How about making sure you're on the right street? I mean, just the right street? Checking the street sign? Is that, you know, asking too much?' The Justice Department argued in part that it should not be liable because federal law bars tort suits when a federal employee is exercising discretion in carrying out their work. In this case, the government argued, the agents had to exercise discretion in how they confirmed they were at the correct house. This story is breaking and has been updated with additional details.


Boston Globe
13 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court revives lawsuit from Atlanta family whose home was wrongly raided by the FBI
Martin and Cliatt filed a lawsuit against the federal government accusing the agents of assault and battery, false arrest and other violations. But lower courts tossed out the case. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found they couldn't sue over what amounted to an honest mistake. Advertisement The appeals court also found the lawsuit was barred under a provision of the Constitution known as the Supremacy Clause, which says federal laws take precedence over state laws. The family's lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Congress clearly allowed for lawsuits like theirs after a pair of similar headline-making raids on wrong houses in 1974. The 11th Circuit was also ruling differently than other courts around the country, they said. Public interest groups from across the political spectrum urged the justices to overturn the ruling, saying its reasoning would severely narrow the legal path for people to sue the federal government in law-enforcement accountability cases. Advertisement


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Unanimously Greenlights Lawsuit Over FBI's Botched Raid
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that an Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI in 2017 can move forward with their lawsuit, granting them a new day in court. The decision stems from a pre-dawn incident in which an FBI SWAT team broke down the family's front door, deployed a flashbang grenade, and pointed weapons at Trina Martin, her then-boyfriend Toi Cliatt, and her 7-year-old son—only to realize moments later they had entered the wrong house. Although the agents quickly apologized and relocated to the correct address—blaming a GPS error for the mistake—Martin and Cliatt were left with emotional trauma and a damaged home. Their lawsuit against the federal government, alleging assault, false arrest, and other claims, was initially dismissed by lower courts. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the agents were protected under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which prioritizes federal law over state law. But Martin's legal team, backed by advocacy groups across the political spectrum, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that such protections should not shield federal agents from accountability in clear cases of harm. The Court's decision reverses the lower rulings and revives a debate on law enforcement oversight and federal immunity. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.