Christian, Jewish, and Muslim parents are asking the Supreme Court to allow them to opt their young children out of LGBTQQIAAP2S+ indoctrination at schools in Montgomery County, Maryland.
In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education announced new “inclusivity” books for K-5 students and took away parental notice and opt-outs for story books that discuss topics like “gender” transitions, pride parades, and preferred pronouns. In 2023, a federal court upheld a lower court decision siding with Maryland’s largest school district, and parents appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in January and will hear oral arguments in April.
This week, the Solicitor General of the United States, 26 states, 66 members of Congress, 35 members of the Maryland legislature, and various religious groups and scholars submitted briefs to the high court backing the petitioners and arguing that parents have the right to direct the upbringing of their children in accordance with their faith — not the government.
“As this outpouring of support makes clear, parents don’t take a backseat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, the law firm representing concerned parents. “Montgomery County’s decision to run roughshod over parental rights betrays our nation’s traditions and common sense. The Justices should restore the opt-out and allow parents to raise their children according to their beliefs.”
In their petition, parents ultimately asked the Supreme Court to answer: “Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?”
“The First Amendment places high value on the right of parents to convey their religious beliefs and practices to their children. For Petitioners, that right has special significance as they seek to instill religious beliefs on gender and sexuality — beliefs crucial for their children’s ability to fulfill religious aspirations concerning marriage and family,” they argue.
“By compelling instruction designed to indoctrinate Petitioners’ children against their religious beliefs — all without notice or opportunity to opt out — the Board has put Petitioners to an impossible choice,” the petition reads. “They must subject their children to instruction intended to disrupt their religious beliefs or forgo the benefits of a public education at the sizeable cost of either paying for private school, homeschooling, or facing government fines and penalties. That obvious burden on Petitioners’ free exercise is constitutionally impermissible for at least two reasons.”
READ MORE – Federal Court: Parents in Maryland School District Cannot Opt K-5 Children Out of LGBTQ Curriculum
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, parents argued that the district’s refusal to allow their young children to opt out of reading of LGBTQQIAAP2S+-themed books or participation in the curriculum violated their right to raise their children in accordance with their faith and how their faith defines identity and sexuality. Parents also argued the material is not age-appropriate for such young students.
Book titles integrated into the K-5 curriculum include The Pride Puppy, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope. The book The Pride Puppy — which is “the sole test expressly approved for use in pre-Kindergarten and Head Start classrooms” — invited “the three and four-year-old audience… to look for items such as “[drag] king,” “leather,” “lip ring,” “[drag] queen,” and “underwear,” the judge’s opinion notes.
Parents also pointed out that the district had provided guidance to teachers and staff on how to redirect concerns about the pro-LGBTQ+ content and questions from students.
The order details:
The guidance also counsels that if a student says that “a girl… can only like boys because she’s a girl,” the teacher can “[d]isrupt the either/or thinking by saying something like: actually, people of any gender can like whoever they like… How do you think it would make __(character’s name)__ to hear you say that? Do you think it’s fair for people to decide for us who we can and can’t like?”
Even so, judges released a 2-1 panel decision affirming a lower court decision denying the request of religious parents to block the policy. Judge G. Steven Agee, a President George W. Bush appointee, wrote the majority opinion stating that parents did not present enough evidence to show that the policy violates the free exercise of their religion and their due process right to direct their children’s education.
“We take no view on whether the Parents will be able to present evidence sufficient to support any of their various theories once they have the opportunity to develop a record as to the circumstances surrounding the Board’s decision and how the challenged texts are actually being used in schools,” Agee wrote.
“At this early stage, however, given the Parents’ broad claims, the very high burden required to obtain a preliminary injunction, and the scant record before us, we are constrained to affirm the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction,” he continued.
The panel also said that “simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires.”
Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, wrote a dissenting opinion saying he would have overturned the district court ruling and blocked the school district’s policy.
“I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the parents have not produced enough evidence to establish that their free exercised rights have been burdened. The parents have met their burden,” he wrote. “They have produced the books that no one disputes will be used to instruct their K-5 children. They produced declarations explaining in detail why the books conflict with their religious beliefs. They have produced the board’s own internal documents that show how it suggests teachers respond to students and parents who question the contents of the books.”
“These parents’ faith dictates that they—not others—teach their children about sex, human sexuality, gender and family life. Their faiths dictate that they shield their children from teachings that contradict and undermine their religious views on those topics,” he added. “And no matter how you slice it, the board’s decision to deny religious opt-outs prevents the parents from exercising these aspects of their faith if they want their children to obtain a public education.”
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for the case on April 22, 2025.
The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on X @thekat_hamilton.
Read the full article here