The Supreme Court docket stated Friday it could assessment a case involving a bunch of Maryland dad and mom who sued their youngsters’s college district over its refusal to permit them to choose out of elementary college lessons that use books with LGBTQ themes or characters.
The dad and mom, represented by the Becket Fund for Spiritual Liberty, sued Montgomery County Public Faculties in 2023 after the varsity district stated it could now not honor opt-out requests or notify households if a guide referencing gender or sexuality could be learn in school. Maryland’s largest college district introduced in 2022 that revisions to its curriculum would come with a brand new studying checklist of storybooks with younger LGBTQ characters, a part of a broader effort to foster range and inclusion.
The books included “My Rainbow,” a couple of mom who makes a rainbow-colored wig for her transgender daughter, and “Love, Violet,” a narrative a couple of lady who develops a crush on her feminine classmate. One other guide, “Pride Puppy!”, considerations a pet who will get misplaced throughout a homosexual pleasure parade.
Initially, the varsity board stated it could enable dad and mom to take away their youngsters from the classroom when the books had been learn, but it surely modified course shortly after, touching off a wave of protests from dad and mom who stated the transfer violated their First Modification rights.
Three households sued the varsity system that Might, arguing that stopping them from opting their youngsters out of lessons with LGBTQ-inclusive books infringed on their free train of faith. They don’t seem to be difficult the curriculum or asking the varsity district to cease studying the books to different college students.
The lead plaintiffs within the case, Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, are Muslims who eliminated their elementary-aged son from public college after a district courtroom sided with Montgomery County in August 2023. Different plaintiffs are members of the Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox church buildings.
The dad and mom, who twice misplaced their case earlier than interesting to the Supreme Court docket, consider an individual’s gender and intercourse at beginning are “intertwined and inseparable” and “an integral part of God’s design,” based on courtroom paperwork. They consider that they’ve a spiritual obligation to show their youngsters in regards to the “immutable sexual differences between males and females, the biblical way to properly express romantic and sexual desires, and the role of parents to love one another unconditionally and sacrificially within the confines of biblical marriage.”
Attorneys for the varsity district wrote in courtroom filings that the disputed books are age-appropriate and “impart critical reading skills” to younger college students. They added that the households concerned within the lawsuit had not supplied any proof that Montgomery County Public Faculties pressured their youngsters “to affirm or disavow particular views” or compelled them to behave in violation of their non secular beliefs.
The justices permitted the dad and mom’ request to listen to the case Friday in a quick, unsigned order.
Final Might, the Supreme Court docket declined to listen to one other case involving Montgomery County Public Faculties. A separate group of fogeys sued the varsity district in 2020 over a coverage meant to assist transgender college students.
“Cramming down controversial gender ideology on three-year-olds without their parents’ permission is an affront to our nation’s traditions, parental rights, and basic human decency,” Eric Baxter, vp and senior counsel at Becket, stated Friday in an announcement. “The Court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality.”
A spokesperson for Montgomery County Public Faculties didn’t instantly return a request for remark.
The dispute was one in every of 5 circumstances the Supreme Court docket agreed to listen to Friday. It’s poised to be the final batch of circumstances the justices will contemplate this time period except the courtroom takes up a future case on an expedited timeline.
The justices stated they’d additionally take up disputes involving pupil incapacity claims and fight incapacity funds, amongst different circumstances.
Zach Schonfeld contributed.
