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

Liberals, anti-Trump figures bash ABC for suspending Terry Moran over anti-Trump social media rant
Liberals, anti-Trump figures bash ABC for suspending Terry Moran over anti-Trump social media rant

Fox News

time12 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Liberals, anti-Trump figures bash ABC for suspending Terry Moran over anti-Trump social media rant

Liberal pundits and anti-Trump figures slammed ABC News for suspending longtime correspondent Terry Moran after he ranted on social media about President Donald Trump and Stephen Miller. "They can clutch their pearls and act mad but this is spot on from Moran," Tommy Vietor, a co-host of "Pod Save America," wrote, reacting to Moran's deleted social media post that referred to both men as "world-class hater[s]." Moran called out Trump and Miller on social media early Sunday morning and proceeded to delete the post. An ABC News spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement that Moran was suspended, saying, "The post does not reflect the views of ABC News and violated our standards." "MAGA, I thought you all defended free speech and the First Amendment, right? Why are you so upset about Terry Moran's comments? Stop being such snowflakes, right? Stop looking for safe spaces. Man up," posted left-wing writer Wajahat Ali, who edits "The Left Hook" Substack. Joe Walsh, a former GOP congressman who joined the Democratic Party this year, said, "shame on you, @abcnews." "Way to NOT stand up for a free press," he added. In another post on X, Walsh called the suspension of Moran "utter b-------," and said, "You're the free press. You don't do what the authoritarian in the White House tells you to do. Thank you @TerryMoran for having the courage to speak the truth." "What Moran reported was demonstrable fact. Indisputable fact. Yet they suspend him. This is the advantage that Trump and his ilk have. They are so beyond the moral pale, so beyond normality, that it is considered impolite, impolitic, or intemperate to describe them as they are," Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway wrote. Medhi Hasan, a former MSNBC host who started his own publication, Zeteo, directed his criticism at the Trump officials who defended the president and Miller. "Snowflakes. Pretend free speech warriors. Getting journalists suspended and calling for their firing. Hypocrites," Hasan wrote. Hasan also posted on Bluesky that Moran's suspension was "'ironic given Moran went out of his way to not embarrass Trump over the president's delusion about the doctored MS13 photo, repeatedly saying 'let's agree to disagree' and 'let's move on' but they still got him suspended. You can't appease these people ever." Moran interviewed Trump about his first 100 days in office, during which Trump repeatedly called out Moran and ABC News. Trump accused Moran of "not being very nice" during an exchange about the deportation of illegal immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia. "They're giving you the big break of a lifetime," Trump told Moran. "You're doing the interview, I picked you because, frankly, I never heard of you, but that's OK. I picked you, Terry, but you're not being very nice." Far-left former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann re-posted Moran's attacks on Miller and Trump, and called out Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, which owns ABC News. "Another coward named @RobertIger responded by letting ABC News suspend Terry indefinitely for telling the truth," Olbermann wrote. "I have copied Terry's words here and I encourage everybody, journalists especially, to do the same, or cut and paste what I've written, and put it out under your name." Others also called on their followers to share Moran's deleted post. Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch, a liberal website, said Moran's suspension was a product of corporate journalism. "Independent journalism is when you can write what Terry Moran wrote without getting in trouble. Corporate journalism is when you can't," he wrote. ABC News did not immediately return a request for comment. Moran's suspension for airing his thoughts comes as public trust in the media continues to steadily erode. A Gallup survey last year showed a record-low 31 percent of Americans expressed at least a "fair amount" of trust in the media to accurately report the news. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to Moran's post on X, Sunday, calling it "unhinged and unacceptable."

New Trump travel ban takes effect
New Trump travel ban takes effect

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

New Trump travel ban takes effect

President Trump's travel ban targeting a dozen countries went into effect on Monday, the latest step by the White House to crack down on the number of individuals entering the U.S. The new policy fully restricts the entry into the United States of nationals from Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also partially restricts entry into the U.S. for nationals coming from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The policy makes exceptions for nationals from all 19 of those countries who are lawful permanent residents of the United States or existing visa holders and individuals 'whose entry serves U.S. national interests.' The travel ban is taking effect amid rising tensions in Los Angeles around immigration raids in the city. Trump and White House officials have argued the travel restrictions are based on national security concerns, specifically with vetting procedures involving the listed countries. Trump's attempts to restrict entry into the United States from certain Muslim-majority countries in his first term drew legal challenges and protests at airports across the country. This time around, experts have suggested he is likely on firmer legal footing in part because of a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the third version of his first-term ban and in part because the administration laid the groundwork with an executive order focused on enhanced vetting.

Trump travel ban now in effect -- Who is impacted
Trump travel ban now in effect -- Who is impacted

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Trump travel ban now in effect -- Who is impacted

The Brief A new order preventing entry to the United States for people from 12 countries and limiting access from nine others is now in effect. The president said the travel rules are about national security and stopping terrorism. Despite the president's assertion that the travel restrictions are needed to protect U.S. citizens, some are questioning them. (FOX 2) - A ban preventing access to the United States for some and restricting visits to others is now in effect. Restrictions began at 12:01 a.m. Monday. Big picture view Announced last week, President Donald Trump's order fully suspends nationals of Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the U.S. The order also includes partial suspensions for nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Some exemptions exist, including for athletes and coaches traveling for the Olympics and World Cup, as well as their immediate families. What they're saying The president said the travel rules are about national security and stopping terrorism. "I directed the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, to identify countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries," the president wrote in a proclination. Overstay rates from these nations were used in making the decision. Trump also said that some of the countries listed have weak or hostile governments. "We want to keep bad people out of our country," the president said. The other side Despite the president's assertion that the travel restrictions are needed to protect U.S. citizens, some are questioning them. Ruby Robinson, an attorney at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, compared it to the so-called "Muslim ban" from Trump's first term. "We are not shocked, nor are we necessarily surprised by the fact that it has arrived," Robinson said. "I think many of us was expecting it." Robinson called on Congress to step up and work on immigration reform. The Source A copy of the president's proclamation and previous FOX 2 reporting was used in this story.

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