The Supreme Court appeared on Tuesday to rely in favor of a group of religious parents who sow a Maryland School Board about its refusal to allow their K-5 children to go out of the LGBTQ+curriculum.
In 2022, the Montgomery County Education Board announced new “included” books for K-5 students and notification of parents and options for collection of stories books that discuss topics such as “genre” transitions, proud parades and preferred pronouns. Some of the reading materials include THE PURDER OF PRIDE” Uncle Bobby Weddingand Born Ready: The real story of a boy named Penelope.
In 2023, a Federal Court confirmed a decision of the lower court with the largest school district of Maryland, and the combination of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents appealed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to resume the case in January.
In their request, the parents finally asked the Supreme Court to respond: “Public schools carry the religious exercise of parents when they force the children of elementary school to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against religious conviction?
“He [school] The Board does not dispute that, under its theory, it could force the instruction to use pornography, and parents would not have rights, “Eric Baxter argued, the Becket Fund for the representation of the lawyer of religious freedom to the parents.
“The first amendment demands more. Parents, not school boards, should have the last word on such religious matters.”
Judge Amy Coney Barrett noticed the duration of the oral arguments that the Superior Court “[does not] I have to decide if you get exclusion. “
“We just have to decide if the 4th circuit defined precisely what a burden is,” he said.
Later, Barrett seemed worried that LGBTQ+ materials were not only exposing young students to different ideas, but also trying to make the student think “this is the correct vision of the world” and “how you should go to think.”
Judge Brett Kavanaugh at one time said he is “a little bewildered, as a resident of the lifelong of the county, how he came to this.”
Later, Kavanaugh told the lawyer of the school board, Alan Schoenfeld:
I guess I’m not understanding. I believe that the complete objective of some of our precedents of religion is to seek gain/victory, to look for the situation in which you can respect religious beliefs and accommodation religious beliefs, while the State or whatever may be can pursue its objectives.
“And, here, they are not asking you to change what is taught in the classroom. They do not ask you They are to be able to leave so that they do not have it, so parents do not have their children exhibited to these things that are contrary to their own beliefs. “
Judge Samuel Alito pressed Schoenfeld about why schools decided not to accommodate students when they had options for other materials and subjects.
“Well, the plaintiff here is not scaring school to change his curriculum. They just say, they look, we want. Alito said.
At another time, Judge Neil Gorsuch Essentialy made Schoenfeld admit that the school board included books in the curriculum to “influence” young minds.
“So the puppy of pride was the book that was used for the Pre -Kindergarten curriculum. That is no longer in the curriculum,” said Schoenfeld.
“That is the one who is supposed to look for leather and things, and slavery, things like that, right?” Gorsuch asked.
“It’s not Bondage,” Schoenfeld replied. “She is a leather woman.”
“A sex worker?” Gorsuch pressed.
Judge Barrett then intervened and said it was a “Drag Queen”, to which Schoenfeld said “correct.”
“Yes. Okay. And you – you have included thesis in the English language curriculum instead of the human sexuality curriculum to influence students, is it fair? That is what the District Court found. Do you agree with that?” Gorsuch continued.
“I think, to the extent that the District Court determined that it was to influence, was to influence the issues of courtesy, the natural consequence of being exposed to -” Schoenfeld replied.
“Whatever, but to influence them,” Gorsuch intervened.
Liberal inclination judges seemed worried about how to define the “load.”
“How do we make it very clear that mere exposure to the things that opposes is not coercion?” Judge Sonia Sotomayor asked Baxter.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson declared that parents “can choose to put their child elsewhere” instead of public schools if they do not believe with what they are being taught.
“I guess I am struggling to see how it agitates the religious exercise of a father if the school teaches something that the father does not agree,” he admitted. “You have an option, you don’t have to send your children to that school.”
Jackson also said: “At this time, not, according to the registration he has provided, we know that these books are not only sitting on the shelves.”
However, the question had already been addressed early in oral arguments when the inclined conservative judge Clarence Thomas asked Baxter how the record “shows that children are more than simply exposed to the types of Thinkkybooks?”
“We know that the teacher must use the books. When the books were first introduced in August 2022, the Board suggested that five before the end of the year be used,” Baxter said, citing transcripts and tests. “One of the schools, the Sherwood School, in June, for the pride month, said they will read a book every day to celebrate the month of pride.
“That was the full point of removing the option and even removing the parents. They did not allow them to know equally,” Baxter explained. “The Board said in that statement that it was so that all students were taught from the books of inclusion stories.”
The case is Mahmoud v. TaylorNo. 24-297 in the United States Supreme Court.