logo
Supreme Court signals support for parents who object to LGBTQ books in Maryland school system

Supreme Court signals support for parents who object to LGBTQ books in Maryland school system

New York Post22-04-2025

The Supreme Court indicated Tuesday it would rule in favor of a group of parents who sued a suburban Maryland school board over its refusal to allow parents of elementary school children to opt out of classes with LGBTQ-themed storybooks.
Plaintiffs argue that the school system in Montgomery County, just outside Washington, DC, cannot require children to sit through lessons involving the books if their family has religious objections.
'The [school] board does not dispute that under its theory, it could compel instruction using pornography, and parents would have no rights,' argued Eric Baxter, an attorney for parent Tamer Mahmoud.
Advertisement
'The First Amendment demands more. Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters.'
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.
4 Parents sued Montgomery County Public Schools over its decision to scrap the opt-out.
Courtesy of Grace Morrison
Advertisement
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.
Both a federal judge and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously backed the school board in denying a preliminary injunction sought by the parents. The 4th Circuit concluded the plaintiffs needed to show that their children were being coerced to act differently than their religious beliefs.
'We don't have to decide whether you get the opt-out,' conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett mused at one point. 'We just have to decide if the 4th Circuit accurately defined what a burden is.'
Later, Barrett expressed concerns that the LGBTQ-laced classroom instructions aren't merely trying to expose students to different ideas, but are about trying to impress upon students that 'this is the right view of the world' and 'how you should think about things.'
Advertisement
At times, some of the conservative justices sounded uneasy about the content of some of the books in question.
4 Supreme Court justices referenced some of the books in question during oral arguments.
Simon & Schuster
'That's the one where they were supposed to look for the leather and bondage things like that,' Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about the 'Pride Puppy' book for pre-K students, which was later removed from the curriculum by the board.
'Do you think it's fair to say that all that is done in 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' is to expose children to the fact that there are men who marry other men?' Justice Samuel Alito asked Baxter, before answering his own question.
Advertisement
'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with.'
MCPS attorney Alan Schoenfeld argued that the school system already provides parents with ample opportunity to provide input.
'The school board here is democratically elected,' he contended. 'The entire process of adopting this curriculum is open and transparent. These books are on review for 30 days before they're even made part of the curriculum. There's then a multi-level appeal process.
'There's plenty of opportunity for parental insight.'
4 Activists in the Christian and Muslim communities argued that the lessons violated their religious rights.
MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said at one point that he was 'a bit mystified, as a lifelong resident of the county, how it came to this.'
'The other Maryland counties have opt-outs for all sorts of things,' the justice added.
Schoenfeld explained that there had been 'dozens of students walking out' of classes and that schools were struggling to figure out the logistics of alternative spaces and supervision for them.
Advertisement
'They don't do it for all sorts of other opt-outs,' the attorney countered. 'There's a limited universe of things that students can opt out from.'
'The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum,' Alito rejoined. 'They're just saying, 'Look, we want out.' Why is that not feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?'
4 Protesters on both sides of the issue demonstrated outside of the Supreme Court.
FOX NEWS
Schoenfeld sought to impress upon the high court that schools across the country teach a variety of lessons that conflict with parents' beliefs.
Advertisement
'Children encounter real and fictional women who forego motherhood and work outside the home,' he said. 'Children read books valorizing our nation's veterans who fought in violent wars. Each of these things is deeply offensive to some people of faith.'
Liberal justices seemed particularly concerned about redefining the 'burden' definition.
'How do we make very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?' Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Baxter at one point.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stressed that parents 'can choose to put their kid elsewhere' and are not required to send their children to public schools if they disagree with what is being taught.
Advertisement
'I guess I'm struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with,' she admitted. 'You have a choice, you don't have to send your kids to that school.'
Jackson also listed a series of hypotheticals — such as a gay teacher talking to children about their spouse or transgender students — and got Baxter to admit that he probably would not support an opt-out in those scenarios.
Justice Elena Kagan suggested attorneys for the parents 'did not want to draw lines' on where an opt-out would not be honored.
Advertisement
'You're still not giving me anything other than if it's in a school and a sincere religious parent has an objection, that objection is always going to result in an opt-out, no matter what the instruction is like,' she vented.
The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor by the end of June.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Brazil's Supreme Court justices agree to make social media companies liable for user content
Brazil's Supreme Court justices agree to make social media companies liable for user content

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Brazil's Supreme Court justices agree to make social media companies liable for user content

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — The majority of justices on Brazil's Supreme Court have agreed to make social media companies liable for illegal postings by their users. Gilmar Mendes on Wednesday became the sixth of the court's 11 justices to vote to open a path for companies like Meta, X and Microsoft to be sued and pay fines for content published by their users. Voting is ongoing but a simple majority is all that is needed for the measure to pass. The ruling will come after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned of possible visa restrictions against foreign officials allegedly involved in censoring American citizens. The only dissenting Brazilian justice so far is André Mendonça and his vote was made public last week. The social media proposal would become law once voting is finished and the result is published. But Brazil's Congress could still pass another law to reverse the measure. The current legislation states social media companies can only be held responsible in those cases if they do not remove hazardous content after a court order. Mauricio Savarese, The Associated Press

Nirenberg says San Antonio did not get heads-up about Texas National Guard
Nirenberg says San Antonio did not get heads-up about Texas National Guard

Axios

time33 minutes ago

  • Axios

Nirenberg says San Antonio did not get heads-up about Texas National Guard

Mayor Ron Nirenberg said San Antonio did not request, nor receive notice of, the Texas National Guard being here ahead of protests planned on Saturday against the Trump administration. Why it matters: Gov. Greg Abbott's decision to send the Texas National Guard to major city protests comes amid a national debate about the militarization of law enforcement and the rights of protesters. Catch up quick: Thousands are expected to protest during "No Kings Day" on Saturday nationwide and in downtown San Antonio. Organizers expect it will be the largest single-day rally against President Trump since the start of his second term. Abbott instructed the Texas National Guard to "use every tool and strategy to help law enforcement maintain order." The White House has already deployed the National Guard and Marines in response to protests in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. Reality check: A San Antonio rally last weekend, in protest of ICE deportations and recent local arrests at the courthouse, remained peaceful. Zoom in: Democratic U.S. Reps. Joaquin Castro and Greg Casar said Abbott's decision is "inflammatory" and that he's "escalating tensions rather than promoting safety." What they're saying:"I have full faith and confidence in our community to exercise their First Amendment rights peacefully," Nirenberg said Wednesday at a press conference.

White House tries to clarify Trump's threat to use 'heavy force' on 'any' military parade protesters

time36 minutes ago

White House tries to clarify Trump's threat to use 'heavy force' on 'any' military parade protesters

The White House on Wednesday attempted to clarify President Donald Trump's threat the day before to use "heavy force" against "any" protesters at the military parade this weekend in Washington celebrating the Army 's 250th anniversary. "The president supports peaceful protests," press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at a White House briefing after Trump on Tuesday did not distinguish between peaceful and violent protesters. "He supports the First Amendment. He supports the right of Americans to make their voices heard," she added, after being asked what Trump would allow at the parade given his military response to the protests against his immigration policies in Los Angeles. "He does not support violence of any kind. He does not support assaulting law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their job." "It's very clear for the president what he supports and what he does not," she said. "Unfortunately for Democrats, that line is not been made clear, and they've allowed this unrest in this violence to continue, and the president has had to step in." The president's comments on Tuesday said protesters would be"met with heavy force" if they arrived in Washington for the parade, which occurs days after he sent the National Guard and the Marines to Los Angeles to quell protests against operations conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "These are people who hate our country," he said in the Oval Office. "We're going to celebrate big on Saturday," Trump added. "If any protesters want to come out, they will be met with very big force." U.S. Secret Service and local D.C. officials have said they only expect several small protests at Saturday's parade, and Trump himself on Tuesday night appeared to soften his earlier Oval Office comments somewhat, saying, "As long as we have the military there, the protests won't mean anything." "The military will be very heavy force -- very proud to tell you that," he told reporters who had asked him what he meant. "They might as well turn around. They're wasting their time." Tall fencing has been set up and other security measures have been taken around Washington in the lead-up to the parade -- measures the White House said are purely "proactive" and not in reaction to the protests in Los Angeles. "These are proactive security measures to protect those marching in the parade, many of whom will be veterans, and our brave men and women in uniform and Gold Star families," Leavitt said. "And of course, it's to protect the spectators who will be enjoying this incredibly patriotic show on Saturday." Leavitt's comments came as the first soldiers arrive in the district for the parade. Approximately 6,700 soldiers will participate, and there will be eight marching bands, 24 horses, two mules and a dog. Dozens of tanks, military vehicles, howitzers and various aircraft will be on display, and the Army on Wednesday added rocket launchers and precision-guided missiles to the festivities.

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