The Supreme Court ruled that parents in a Maryland school district are allowed to opt their children out of LGBTQ+ education, citing religious freedom concerns. The 6-3 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor announced Friday, June 27, fell along ideological lines, with the court’s conservatives forming the majority, to which the liberals dissented.
How did the justices rule?
The justices granted an injunction to the parents, allowing them to opt their children out while the case works its way through the courts for a final decision. Justice Samuel Alito noted in the majority opinion that the parents are likely to win on the merits.
“Without an injunction, the parents will continue to suffer an unconstitutional burden on their religious exercise, and such a burden unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” Alito wrote in the majority opinion.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
Alito specifically said the school board should be ordered to notify parents in advance when one of the LGBTQ+ books is used in a lesson and that the parents should be allowed to have their child excused during the lesson.
“The Board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks, combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs, substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners’ children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that [this court] found unacceptable,” Alito wrote.
What is the background of the case?
Montgomery County schools in Maryland require elementary school teachers to read their students books that celebrate gender transitions, pride parades and same-sex playground romance.
Court documents state that educators chose the books to challenge “cisnormativity,” the assumption that everyone is cisgender, or identifies with the gender assigned at birth. Documents also reveal members of the school board had objections to the curriculum because they believed it wasn’t appropriate for the intended age group, presented gender ideology as fact, potentially shamed students with contrary opinions and was “dismissive of religious beliefs.”
After initially allowing opt-outs from the lessons, the school board started requiring attendance. They also stopped notifying parents when they planned to read the books.
The plaintiffs in the case are parents of different religions — Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox. Their lawsuit did not challenge the curriculum, just the fact that their elementary-aged children were compelled to attend, despite the fact that the lessons did not align with their family’s religious beliefs. They argued that the requirement violated their rights under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that the majority created a new constitutional right to avoid exposure to “subtle” themes that are contrary to a parent’s religious beliefs.
“[Public schools] offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society,” Sotomayor wrote. “That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality. 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.”
The justices ordered the lower courts to take the case back and put it through the standard proceedings, using their decision as a guide.
