As protesters gathered on the front steps of the Supreme Court, the justices inside heard arguments in a Maryland case that could determine whether parents, due to their religious beliefs, have the right to pull their children out of classes that teach about gender and sexuality.
“Parents everywhere care about how their young children are taught sexuality and gender identity,” Eric Baxter, attorney for petitioners Tamer Mahmoud, et al., said during the arguments. “That's why nearly every public school in the country that provides sexuality education requires parental consent first, but Montgomery County is an extreme outlier.”
This Supreme Court case came at a point when Congress and states across the country were considering legislation to restrict teaching about gender and LGBTQ+ people. On Inauguration Day, President Donald Trump signed an executive order saying the federal government would only recognize male and female genders and rescinded an Education Department order that created a toolkit to help schools avoid discriminating against queer students.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, a group of parents challenged Maryland’s Montgomery County Public School District after it approved a series of books tailored to kindergarten through sixth grade that included LGBTQ+ characters.
The school at first allowed parents to decide whether their children should leave class when the material was being discussed. However, absenteeism surged, so the district then required students to participate. Some of the parents, whose beliefs included Islam and Catholicism, claimed the district violated their right to religious freedom.
Outside the Supreme Court, dozens of protesters on both sides of the case gathered to speak out. Some opponents of the school district held signs such as “Let Kids Be Kids” and “Restore the Opt-Out.” Supporters of the school district held signs with slogans like “Censoring Is Not Freedom” and “Include All Families.”
“This particular issue that has to do with sexual [identity] issues, it’s always been my position that it’s all up to the parent and not the school system,” said David Hafer, 65, a protester outside the Supreme Court.
Hafer stood with a group holding a “Let Parents Parent” sign.
In 2024, when the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision that sided with the school district, the plaintiffs took this case national.
During arguments, Justices Samuel A. Alito and Sonia Sotomayor discussed whether young children should read books like Uncle Bobby’s Wedding in elementary school classes.
“Is merely being exposed to the reading of the book out loud coercion?” Sotomayor asked while questioning attorney Baxter. “So what you’re saying is that the exposure of children to the fact that … two people of the same sex are getting married is coercion?”
Sotomayor highlighted the need to define coercion versus exposure as it relates to teaching in public schools.
Alito claimed that pro-LGBTQ+ morals were being subtly forced through these books.
“Exposure is telling the students that there are a lot of people who marry a person of the opposite sex, there are also people who marry a person of the same sex,” Alito said. “But I think it clearly goes beyond that. It doesn’t just say that Uncle Bobby and Jamie are getting married. It expresses the idea subtly, but it expresses the idea this is a good thing.”
Interfaith Alliance, a multifaith advocacy group, filed an amicus brief opposing the parents’ claims. It argued that removing such books is a form of censorship and fosters intolerance.
Maggie Siddiqi, who identifies as Muslim, is a senior fellow at the alliance and former director of the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Education Department. She commented on how this case is another example of queer identities and religion being put against each other in politics.
“LGBTQ people are a part of each of our faith communities. For folks in Interfaith Alliance, we recognize that when we talk about LGBTQ equality, we are talking about the rights of our fellow community members,” Siddiqi said. “We have witnessed — I think far too often — that religion is used as a tool to legitimize discrimination in public policy against LGBTQ people.”
Jenny Samuels, who co-wrote an amicus brief with lawyers for the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding for the respondents, represented faith groups including Baptist, Jewish, Hindu, Methodist, Muslim, and Sikh.
“We oppose, with regard to this case, an expansion of the Free Exercise Clause that would allow individuals to challenge secular government conduct,” Jenny Samuels, litigation counsel for the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said. “It felt really important to show that the plaintiff parents in this case do not represent all religious communities in this country.”
Owens_taylor.jpg
If the court were to side with the parents, she said it would ultimately hurt the First Amendment rights of children to learn how to respect people’s various backgrounds.
The National Council of Jewish Women, which signed on with the brief, said implementing the opt out could lead to students being prevented from understanding peers of different faiths.
“If families and people of faith are allowed to opt out of anything that they disagree with, the students will never learn to peacefully coexist with or tolerate others with opposing views,” Darcy Hirsh, senior director of Government Relations and Advocacy at the National Council of Jewish Women, said. “Then [students will] never be exposed to minority religions or people that are different from them, and I think it’s really damaging to our communities.”
Samuels and Siddiqi also noted that both the students pulled out of lessons and those left in the classroom faced being stigmatized due to their identity if parents were allowed to remove children from classes.
“[LGBTQ people] exist within our school communities. To pretend as if their existence isn’t real is sort of nonsensical, but also it’s deeply harmful to the LGBTQ kids out there, or kids with LGBTQ parents, who are sort of being made to feel as if those identities are something to be ashamed, ashamed of or hidden,” said Siddiqi.
By contrast, the Sutherland Institute, a Utah-based organization, wrote a brief supporting the plaintiffs. It expressed the rights of parents to have similar education laws across the country.
“Our interest was to sort of encourage the Supreme Court to make clear rules about how states should interact with churches, religious schools, parents,” said William Duncan, constitutional law and religious freedom fellow at the Sutherland Institute.
Twenty-four states have passed a form of the “Parents Bill of Rights” laws supporting their roles to review materials in schools and opt their children out of certain activities. Maryland is not among them.
“It makes sense for the Supreme Court to recognize that when the parents in this particular case were not allowed to opt out, they were missing out on an important right that most others in the United States have,” said Duncan.
The clashing opinions in the courtroom were echoed at the dueling protests in front of the Supreme Court.
A protester and Maryland resident, Victoria Kirby-York, 38, said she spent her morning and early afternoon outside the Supreme Court to show her support for the Montgomery County District because as a Christian and queer parent, she hoped her daughter could see their family represented in schools.
“My daughter’s in first grade, and it’s important for her to have books read that include her family. She has two moms, and there’s literally like two books that exist that feature two Black moms raising a child,” said Kirby-York.
She expressed that public education should be “accessible and applicable” to everyone because taxpayers fund it.
With their backs turned to each other, the groups competed to take up space on the Supreme Court’s front steps and make their voices heard. Across from Kirby-York, counterprotester Hafer said he was demonstrating because he is a parent of children who went through the Montgomery County school system.
“I just want to support their effort in this, so they can be in charge of their [children’s] education,” Hafer said. “The parents should be in charge. Let them be the parents and not the government.”
Though the conservative makeup of the Supreme Court seemed to favor the Maryland parents, Kirby-York was optimistic the justices would still side with Montgomery County.
“I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and ensures that we have education that’s publicly funded that truly includes and represents all of us,” said Kirby-York.
Jordan Owens is a master's student at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism, specializing in Politics, Policy and Foreign Affairs. She's focused on education and Civil Rights reporting.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!
