Counsel representing a coalition of parents fighting for the choice to opt their children out of LGBTQ-related curriculum says the case is about letting parents “be the parents.”
“We’re just saying if the school board is going to make that decision, let us have the chance to leave the classroom,” Colten Stanberry, counsel at Becket and attorney for the parents bringing the suit, told Fox News Digital. “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.”
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in parents’ fight to opt their children out of LGBTQ-related curriculum.
The issue at hand in the case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is whether parents have a right to be informed about and to then opt their children out of reading books in elementary schools that conflict with their faith.
MARYLAND MOM TAKING FIGHT TO OPT CHILD OUT OF LGBTQ STORY BOOKS BEFORE SUPREME COURT
The issue at hand in the case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is whether parents have a right to be informed about and to then opt their children out of reading books in elementary schools that conflict with their faith. (Becket/Getty Images)
“Our case is not a book ban case,” Stanberry emphasized.
“We’re not saying that these books can’t be on the shelves. We’re saying we want to be out of the class,” Stanberry continued. “And we’re also not saying that teachers can’t teach this material.”
A coalition of Jewish, Christian and Muslim parents with elementary school children in Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland brought suit against the school board after it introduced new LGBTQ books into the curriculum as part of the district’s “inclusivity” initiative. The curriculum change came after the state of Maryland enacted regulations seeking to promote “educational equity,” according to the petitioner’s brief filed with the high court.
The school board introduced books that featured transgender and non-binary characters and storylines, according to the brief.
The parents’ coalition stated in its brief that the Board “initially honored parental opt-outs in accordance with its own Guidelines and Maryland law” after parents raised concerns over the new curriculum. After the board issued a public statement in line with this stance, the petitioners stated that the board “reversed course” without prior notice.
“Without explanation, it announced that beginning with the 2023-2024 school year, ‘[s]tudents and families may not choose to opt out’ and will not be informed when ‘books are read,’” the brief reads.
SCOTUS RULINGS THIS TERM COULD STRENGTHEN RELIGIOUS RIGHTS PROTECTIONS, EXPERT SAYS
The school board introduced books that featured transgender and non-binary characters and storylines, according to the brief. (Becket)
The parents sued the school board, arguing that the denial of notice and opt-outs “violated the Free Exercise Clause by overriding their freedom to direct the religious upbringing of their children and by burdening their religious exercise via policies that are not neutral or generally applicable,” petitioners wrote.
The parents cited Wisconsin v. Yoder, a 1972 Supreme Court case, to support their argument. In Yoder, the Court held that a state law requiring children to attend school past eighth grade violated the parents’ constitutional rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to direct their children’s religious upbringings.
Stanberry says that while this case is much narrower than Yoder, the issue at hand is “a right parents have had from the Supreme Court for over 50 years.”
The school board argued in its brief, “The record contains no evidence that teachers have been or will be ‘directed’ or ‘instructed’ to inject any views about gender or sexuality into classroom discussions about the storybooks.”
The school board writes that the storybooks were “offered as an option for literature circles, book clubs, or reading groups; or used for read-alouds.”
“Teachers are not required to use any of the storybooks in any given lesson, and were not provided any associated mandatory discussion points, classroom activities, or assignments,” the brief continued.
The lower court denied the parents’ motion, finding that they could not show “‘that the no-opt-out policy burdens their religious exercise.'”
On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s decision, with the majority holding that the parents had not shown how the policy violated the First Amendment.
SUPREME COURT APPEARS LIKELY TO SIDE WITH CATHOLIC CHURCH AND TRUMP IN KEY RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION CASE
The case comes at a time when President Donald Trump and his administration have prioritized educational and DEI-related reform upon starting his second term. (Getty Images)
Despite the lower court proceedings, Stanberry shared they are “hopeful and excited” as the high court considers the case.
“We think this court will really consider the case,” Stanberry said ahead of Tuesday’s arguments. “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.”
In a statement to Fox News Digital, the school board said its policy “is grounded in our commitment to provide an appropriate classroom environment for all of our students,” saying the board believes “a curriculum that fosters respect for people of different backgrounds does not burden the free exercise of religion.”
“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,” Liliana López, Public Information Officer for the public schools, said. “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.”
The case comes at a time when President Donald Trump and his administration have prioritized educational and DEI-related reform upon starting his second term. The Supreme Court has notably also heard oral arguments this past term in other religious liberty and gender-related suits.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“I think that this case could be seen as people of faith coming forward and saying, ‘Hey, we want to be accommodated in this pluralistic society. So, I think it’s coming at an opportune moment,” Stanberry said.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in mid-January during its 2024-2025 term.
Fox News’ Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, and Kristine Parks contributed to this report.
