Supreme Court to rule on LGBTQ books in the classroom

The Supreme Court will decide if Maryland parents, who object to LGBTQ books in the classroom, have a constitutional right to opt their children out of classes that conflict with their family’s faith. 

Parents in Montgomery County, Maryland are claiming their children’s schools are violating their religious freedom by not allowing them to opt out of lessons that use books featuring LGBTQ story lines.  On Friday, the Supreme Court made the decision they will weigh in on the matter.

According to court papers, the district provided the books to teachers and expected them to be incorporated into the classroom by displaying them on shelves, using them for read-aloud, and recommending them to students. When the policy was first introduced, parents were given the option to opt out their children, according to a previous Fox News article, but the legal filing suggests this option was taken away when so many students were being opted out, that it caused high absenteeism.  

“As alleged in the amended complaint, on March 22, 2023, the Board publicly reiterated that when a teacher chose to use one of the Storybooks in their classrooms, ‘a notification goes out to parents about the book,’ and, if a caregiver chooses to opt their child out, the teacher would ‘find a substitute text for that student that supports’ the same language arts standards and objectives,” the documents states. 

“The following day, without explanation, the Board announced in a complete about-face that a notice and opt-out option would no longer be permitted,” it continues. “Although the revised policy became effective immediately, old requests for accommodations were grandfathered in through the end of the 2022–2023 academic year, making the current 2023–2024 academic year the first year for which no students or their parents are provided notice or the opportunity to opt out from the Storybooks.” 

The books in question tackle the topics of same-sex relationships, coming out as transgender and attending LGBTQ events. According to legal documents, teachers were also given materials about how to handle questions students may have about topics discussed in the storybooks.  

“For example, if a student says ‘Being _____ (gay, lesbian, queer, etc) is wrong and not allowed in my religion,” teachers “can respond,” “I understand that is what you believe, but not everyone believes that. We don’t have to understand or support a person’s identity to treat them with respect and kindness,’( J.A. 595),” the  court document says.  “The guidance also counsels that if a student says that ‘a girl . . . can only like boys because she’s a girl,’ the teacher can [d]isrupt the either/or thinking by saying something like: ‘actually, people of any gender can like whoever they like. . . . How do you think it would make __(character’s name)__ to hear you say that? Do you think it’s fair for people to decide for us who we can and can’t like’?”

The plaintiffs, who consist of a multi-faith coalition of parents, are standing against the material. 

COLLEGES, EDUCATIONAL GROUPS OFFER ADVICE FOR INAUGURATION DAY ‘ANXIETY,’ TRIPS TO DC FOR TRUMP SWEARING-IN 

Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Sarah Parshall Perry says she believes parents will be victorious in their appeal. 

“The notion that parents are the primary authority for their children’s education and welfare is one rooted in biology, the nature of the parent–child relationship, and the centuries-old recognition of the family as the very foundation of a flourishing society,” she wrote. 

Perry told Fox News Digital that this case represents a “very burgeoning field of law in which (there is) a lot of the gender identitarian-ism conflict(ing) directly with these parents’ religious beliefs.” 

“We’re going to see that more and more and I think the fact that this is a multi-faith coalition indicates specifically that this is going to be an issue, that the justices are going to see an increasing measure if they don’t deal with it directly,” she said. “I do believe that was part of the rationale in taking the case in the first place.” 

The legal expert explained that there is a precedent for giving students rights to freedom of religion, even in the aspect of public education. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

“This case, in many respects, goes directly to a case from many years ago, Wisconsin vs. Yoder in 1972,” Perry reflected. “In that case, the Supreme Court determined that Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law violated the free exercise rights of Amish parents because they did not want to send their children to public school after eighth grade. They needed them as part of their religious beliefs to be able to participate in their home communities and help sort of work in other aspects. That was considered to be a violation of their free exercise of religious rights. That is very much what we’re dealing with right here, when the state’s interest conflicts with the First Amendment free exercise of religion, rights of parents.” 

Fox News Digital reached out to the Montgomery County Board of Education who relayed they are “unable to make a statement on pending legal action at the time.” 

The Fourth Circuit Court explained in the documents that the original decision was made against giving parents a preliminary injunction because “the parents have not come forward at this stage with sufficient evidence of a cognizable burden on their free exercise rights to satisfy the requirements of a free exercise claim.”