SCOTUS to hear religious expression case on allowing explicit LGBTQIA+ books in schools

The case was brought against the board by Muslim parents Tamer Mahboud and Enak Barakat, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents Jeff and Svitlana Roman, and Catholic Chris and Melissa Persak, all of whom have children in the county, as well as the unincorporated association Kids First, which was formed to "protect parental opt-out rights in the Montgomery County schools."

In their petition to the Supreme Court, which was granted in January, the filing stated that the board introduced "LGBTQ-inclusive" storybooks in November 2022. Books listed in the case include Pride Puppy, Intersection Allies, What Are Your Words?, Born Ready, Jacob’s Room to Choose, and Love, Violet. According to the Washington Post, Justices at the high court have been reviewing the books aimed at children as part of their review of briefs, exhibits, and declarations in the case. The books cover topics such as Pride parades, pronouns, same sex relationships, and transgender children.

The parents sued the school after the board removed their ability to opt their children out of the readings. They argue that requiring their young children "to participate in instruction contrary to their parents’ religious convictions violated the Free Exercise Clause."

The board had stated in March 2023 that a notification would go out to parents before such a book is read to the students and parents could opt their children out, but reversed course the following day, stating that in the 2023-24 shcool year, "no further notice would be provided and no opt-outs tolerated as to the storybooks."

The petition to the Supreme Court cited a lower court’s ruling on the matter, "that parents essentially surrender their right to direct the religious upbringing of their children by sending them to public schools," which "contradicts centuries of our history and traditions. Those traditions uphold what the decision below tears down: parents’ right to protect their children’s innocence and direct their religious upbringing."

"The First Amendment 'lies at the heart of our pluralistic society.' It cannot do its work if free-exercise rights must be sacrificed by all who attend the nation’s public schools. New government-imposed orthodoxy about what children are 'supposed' to think about gender and sexuality is not a constitutional basis to sideline a child’s own parents. The Court should grant review," reads the petition.

Speaking with the Washington Post, Billy Moges, a member of Kids First, said that the books were "teaching things that are exactly in contradiction with what we believe in." She said the books "steal [kids’] innocence" and "destroys the foundation that they have, the structure of who they are, in God and in our faith. And it just makes absolutely no sense. It just defies common sense."

The parents’ case has seen dozens of organizations and officials file amicus briefs in support, including 25 state attorneys general, the filing for which stated, "Indeed, the School Board’s policy conflicts not only with the longstanding consensus of the States, but also with the law of its own State. Maryland has long required public schools to allow opt-outs from any instruction on 'family life and human sexuality.’"

The Trump administration has also filed a brief supporting the parents, writing, "This case involves whether a State burdens parents’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to allow them to opt their children out of compulsory classroom instruction that contravenes the parents’ religious obligations to their children. Under this Court’s precedents, the answer is undoubtedly yes."