The Supreme Court is leaning towards supporting parents who want to keep their children away from LGBTQ-themed books in schools. This discussion took place during oral arguments in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which centers on a situation in Montgomery County, Maryland, close to Washington, D.C. In 2022, the local school board approved the inclusion of LGBTQ-themed books in its curriculum. However, in 2023, they denied parents the option to excuse their children from this instruction.
One example of the books in question includes a story about a girl attending her uncle’s same-sex wedding, while another, titled "Pride Puppy," tells of a puppy lost during a Pride parade. A lower court had previously ruled that the school board was not required to inform parents when these books would be used, stating that such notification would allow parents to opt their children out of the lessons. The federal appeals court argued that the parents did not prove that exposing their children to these books forced them to violate their religious beliefs.
During the arguments, attorney Eric Baxter, representing the parents, informed Justice Clarence Thomas that teachers were required to use these books multiple times throughout the school year. Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that the county’s policy allowed schools to teach ideas that some parents might find objectionable, questioning why parents couldn’t have the option to opt out, similar to how students can opt out of health classes.
On the other side, the attorney for the school board argued that there is a difference between “exposure” to ideas and “coercion.” Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch expressed concern that the curriculum might go beyond mere exposure, potentially leading to coercion. Gorsuch raised a hypothetical situation regarding a Muslim student and the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed, asking if exposure to such an image could be considered coercive.
The school board’s attorney responded by explaining that while exposure to ideas is not coercive, requiring a student to engage in conduct that violates their beliefs would be. Gorsuch pressed further, indicating that if a book depicted the Prophet Mohammed, it could compel a student to act against their religious beliefs.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that even if the school did not require students to affirm what they learned, this might not be realistic for young children. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised a question about the extent of parental control, asking if parents could request that their child not be placed in a classroom with a gay teacher who displays pictures of their same-sex wedding.
As the Supreme Court considers this case, the implications for educational policy and parental rights in schools could be significant. The justices’ comments suggest a willingness to support parents seeking more control over their children’s exposure to certain topics in the classroom.