By Kate Scanlon / OSV News
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 27 ruled in favor of an interfaith group of Maryland parents who sought to opt their children out of classroom instruction pertaining to books containing LGBTQ+ themes to which they object on religious grounds.
A coalition of parents, including Muslims, Catholics and other Christians, and Jews, sued Montgomery County Public Schools’ board when it refused to allow parents to opt their children out of classroom instruction using some materials containing LGBTQ+ themes.
According to court documents, some of the materials in question included the book “Love, Violet,” which a Kirkus Review described as a “sweetly empathetic, child-friendly girl-girl romance.”
The parents argued that the school board violated their First Amendment rights in doing so, as they objected to the materials on religious grounds.
Previously, a federal judge found that Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland’s largest public school system and one of the country’s most religiously diverse counties, does not have to give advance notice to parents so that they may opt their children out of classroom discussion and reading of the books in question while they pursued a challenge to the policy.
However, in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling, arguing that “the parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction.”
“A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the 6-3 majority.
“And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction,” he said.
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that public schools “offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society.
“That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality,” she said. “Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.”
Sotomayor argued the ruling will create “chaos for this Nation’s public schools.” She said requiring schools “to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.”
In a statement, Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Religious Liberty, said, “Parents have a right to direct their children’s education, especially regarding subjects that touch on faith and morals.”
“Public schools in our diverse country include families from many communities with a variety of deep-seated convictions about faith and morals,” Bishop Rhoades said. “When these schools address issues that touch on these matters, they ought to respect all families. Parents do not forfeit their rights as primary educators of their children when they send their kids to public schools. The parents in Montgomery County did not seek to impose their religious viewpoints on others; they simply asked to opt out of a program that was offensive to their faith.”
“To be sure, children should not be learning that their personal identity as male or female can be separated from their bodies,” he said. “But if a public school chooses to offer these kinds of programs, it ought to respect those who choose not to participate. The school board was wrong to interfere with the rights of the parents, and I am grateful that the Supreme Court has moved to rectify this injustice.”
Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, a religious liberty law firm representing the parents, welcomed the high court’s decision.
“This is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents’ permission,” he said in a statement.
“Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents – not government – have the final say in how their children are raised,” he said.
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, said in a statement, “Every child deserves to see themselves reflected in the stories they read and to be celebrated in their classrooms for who they truly are.”
“This ruling not only tells LGBTQ+ students that they don’t belong, but that their experiences and existence are less worthy of respect,” Robinson said. “In a country where LGBTQ+ youth already face disproportionate rates of bullying, homelessness, and mental health challenges, this ruling weaponizes religious freedom to further marginalize vulnerable students. It’s wrong, it’s dangerous and it’s cruel – plain and simple.”
The Trump administration backed the interfaith coalition of parents. In comments at the White House on June 27, President Donald Trump called the ruling “a great ruling for parents.”
at the bottom and then tap “Add to Home Screen”
