In a decision that could have widespread implications for everyday lessons and activities in public schools, the Supreme Court on Friday sided with a group of Maryland parents who said they wanted to be able to opt their children out of reading story books featuring LGBTQ+ themes and characters.
The 6-3 opinion in Mahmoud v. Taylor, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said that “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.”
The story books at the center of the case, Alito wrote, “are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.” The court’s three liberal members dissented.
School leaders said the ruling could make all kinds of lessons subject to parents opting out because of religious concerns.
“A decision like this will hamstring efforts to give students a full, engaging, and inclusive public education,” the National Education Association said in a statement.
In a dissent that she read from the bench, Justice Sonia Sotomayor predicted a narrowing in that the topics schools feel comfortable teaching.
“Many school districts, and particularly the most resource strapped, cannot afford to engage in costly litigation over opt-out rights or to divert resources to tracking and managing student absences,” Sotomayor wrote. “Schools may instead censor their curricula, stripping material that risks generating religious objections.”
Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.
At issue in the case were several elementary school books introduced in October 2022 in the 160,000-student Montgomery County district, the largest in Maryland.
Teachers were told to use the books as any others in their classrooms: while teaching the whole class or in small groups, sharing them with individual students who might enjoy them, or having them on shelves for students to discover on their own.
But the rollout was contentious in the county, according to court records. Parents and educators alike raised secular and religious objections to the books, and that first year, parents were given the chance to opt their children out of lessons with the books.
In March 2023, Montgomery County reversed that policy, saying too many students had been absent when the books were being used and keeping track of opt-outs was too cumbersome. No opt-outs were allowed during the 2023-24 school year.
Three families sued, asking for an injunction to restore the opt-out policy while the case continued in court. Both the trial judge and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the parents’ request for the opt-out policy to be restored, saying the parents were not likely to be able to show that simply having their children exposed to the material was infringing on their constitutional rights.
The parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction because they were likely to be successful in proving that instruction using the books violates their religious beliefs, the high court held.
Alito wrote that the books are clearly showing same-sex marriage, gender transition or similar themes as events to accept and celebrate.
For example, the book “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” one of those introduced in Montgomery County schools, culminates in a joyous celebration of the young protagonist’s uncle’s marriage to his boyfriend, Jamie.
Related: Supreme Court cases could pave way for larger role for religion in public schools
“There are many Americans who would view the event that way, and it goes without saying that they have every right to do so,” Alito wrote. “But other Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.”
In making the decision, the high court expanded an earlier religious liberty in schools case, Wisconsin v. Yoder. In that 1972 decision, the court held that Amish families could opt their children out of compulsory education past eighth grade because continuing in school longer would be a violation of their religious beliefs.
Campbell Scribner, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland and a scholar of education history, said Alito claimed that the finding in the Yoder case was meant to apply broadly. However, Scribner said, the court in the 1972 case made several points that the Amish people were unique in their assertion that compulsory education was a religious burden. They made a case “that probably few other religious groups or sects could make,” the court wrote in 1972.
Speaking about Friday’s ruling, Scribner said that “by making this sweeping decision, everyone is going to object to anything now. And why wouldn’t they? If people were worried about this setting an unworkable standard, it will definitely do that.”
Sarah S. Brannen, the author of “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” said that the decision speaks about the rights of parents, but the needs of children have taken a back seat.
“We feel that our books are important for LGBTQ children, for children of LGBTQ parents, and for every other child to see the tapestry that makes up our world,” Brannen said. Removing these books from the classroom or making them harder to access means “all children will be denied those windows,” she said.
Contact staff writer Christina Samuels at 212-678-3635, by Signal at cas.37 or samuels@hechingerreport.org
This story about Mahmoud v. Taylor was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education.
Since you made it to the bottom of this article, we have a small favor to ask.
We’re in the midst of our end-of-year campaign, our most important fundraising effort of the year. Thanks to NewsMatch, every dollar you give will be doubled through December 31.
If you believe stories like the one you just finished matter, please consider pitching in what you can. This effort helps ensure our reporting and resources stay free and accessible to everyone—teachers, parents, policymakers—invested in the future of education.
Thank you.
Liz Willen
Editor in chief
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
