Supreme Court leans toward parents in LGBTQ curriculum dispute
04/27/2025 / By Laura Harris
- Montgomery County Public Schools introduced over 20 LGBTQ+-themed books to its K-8 curriculum in 2022. Initially, parents could opt their children out, but the school board revoked this option in 2023, sparking backlash.
- Muslim, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox parents, represented by the Becket Fund, sued, arguing the forced inclusion of LGBTQ+ materials violates their religious freedoms under the First Amendment. They cite precedents like Wisconsin v. Yoder to claim parental rights over sensitive education.
- During oral arguments, conservative justices, including Alito, questioned the school board’s refusal to allow opt-outs, expressing skepticism about denying parents’ religious objections. The Court appeared sympathetic to the parents’ case.
- The district maintains the policy promotes inclusivity and claims it doesn’t burden religious freedom, urging the Court to uphold lower court rulings that sided with them.
- A ruling in favor of the parents could redefine how schools balance mandatory curricula with religious exemptions, setting a precedent for parental rights in education. Both sides await the Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court has appeared sympathetic to a group of parents challenging a Maryland school district’s policy of including LGBT-themed books in elementary school curricula without an opt-out option after hearing the oral arguments for more than two hours.
In 2022, the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), one of the largest and most diverse districts in the United States, introduced over 20 LGBT-inclusive books into its K-8 language arts curriculum. Titles such as “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope” (about a transgender child) and “Love, Violet” (a same-sex romance between girls) sparked immediate controversy.
Initially, parents could request alternatives, but the district eliminated that option in early 2023, igniting legal action from Muslim, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox families represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
As a response, parents filed a dispute that centers on their constitutional right to opt their children out of lessons involving books with LGBTQ+ themes when they conflict with their religious beliefs. The parents contend that the policy violates their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause, citing Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), in which the Supreme Court upheld Amish parents’ right to remove their children from school after eighth grade due to religious objections.
“Our case is not a book ban case. We’re not saying that these books can’t be on the shelves. We’re saying we want to be out of the class. And we’re also not saying that teachers can’t teach this material. We’re just saying if the school board is going to make that decision, let us have the chance to leave the classroom. And so I think for my parent clients, they’re saying let us be the parents. Keep us involved in the school decision-making process. Don’t try to cut us out,” said Colten Stanberry, a counsel at Becket and attorney for the parents bringing the suit.
After hearing the Mahmoud v. Taylor case for more than two hours, conservative justices questioned the reason MCPS rescinded a prior opt-out policy, forcing families opposed to the books on religious grounds to either accept the material or withdraw their children from public education altogether.
“The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum. They’re just saying, ‘look, we want out,'” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told the lawyer for the MCPS. “What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?”
In short, the conservative-leaning court appeared sympathetic to the parents’ claims, signaling a potential shift in how religious objections are weighed against school curriculum mandates.
Both sides hopeful and excited as SC hears their case
Despite that, the school board remained confident in its stance.
“Based on established law, as discussed in our brief and by our counsel at today’s argument, we believe the Supreme Court can and should affirm the lower courts’ rulings,” said Liliana Lopez, Public Information Officer for the public schools, while referring to the lower court initially denying the parents’ motion. “Regardless of the outcome, we are grateful for the opportunity to have our case heard by the highest court in the land. We await the Court’s decision.” (Related: Appeals court REJECTS request by Maryland parents to allow kids to opt out of reading LGBT BOOKS.)
The school board claimed the policy is grounded in their “commitment to provide an appropriate classroom environment” for all of their students.
Meanwhile, Stanberry also expressed cautious optimism as the Supreme Court hears the case. “Obviously, I don’t have a crystal ball. I can’t predict how it’s going to come out, but we’re feeling good going into it,” Stanberry said.
Check out EducationSystem.news for similar stories.
Watch this clip of Muslim families in Maryland’s Montgomery County protesting against LGBT books used in the MCPS.
This video is from the Puretrauma357 channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:
Biden-appointed judge rules parents can’t opt children out of school lessons promoting LGBT ideology.
Books on gender transitioning recommended to kindergartners in Newsom’s California.
Virginia reverses transgender school policy, returns right to affirm children’s gender to parents.
Sources include:
Submit a correction >>
Tagged Under:
gay mafia, gender confused, gender fluid, gender mutilation, grooming, identity politcs, left cult, LGBTQIAAP2SN+ lessons, Medical Tyranny, Parental rights, Supreme Court, transhumanism, woke mob
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
RECENT NEWS & ARTICLES
