SCOTUSblog CASE PREVIEW: Supreme Court considers parents' efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Several outlets will be carrying the audio of the oral arguments. They should be starting right after ten, as soon as today's opinions have been released.

ETA:

Ellena Erskine
Mod
10:11 AM

supremecourt.gov
Live Oral Argument Audio
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser…
But it's running now if you'd like to listen: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

CASE PREVIEW
Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes

By Amy Howe
on Apr 21, 2025 at 12:56 pm

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in the first of two cases in April involving religion and public schools. In Mahmoud v. Taylor a coalition of parents from Montgomery County, Md., contend that requiring their children to participate in instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes violates their religious beliefs and thus their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

Montgomery County, in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., is the largest school district in Maryland and one of the country’s most religiously diverse counties. The dispute before the justices on Tuesday began in 2022, when the county approved books featuring LGBTQ+ characters for inclusion in its language-arts curriculum. One book used for young children, Pride Puppy, tells the story of a puppy that gets lost during a Pride parade. Another book tells the story of a girl attending her uncle’s same-sex wedding.

When the county announced in 2023 that it would not allow parents to opt to have their children excused from instruction involving the storybooks, a group of Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents went to federal court. They contended that the refusal to give them the option to opt their children out violated their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion – specifically, their ability to instruct their children on issues of gender and sexuality according to their faith and to control when and how these issues are introduced to their children.

The lower courts rejected the parents’ request for an order that would temporarily require the county, while the litigation continued, to notify the parents when the storybooks would be used and give them a chance to opt out of instruction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit explained that on the “threadbare” record before it, the parents had not shown that exposure to the storybooks compelled them to violate their religion.

{snip}

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 21, 2025, 12:56 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes/

Politics
Supreme Court takes up religious rights dispute over LGBTQ books in Maryland schools

By MARK SHERMAN
Updated 8:50 AM EDT, April 22, 2025

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments Tuesday over the religious rights of parents in Maryland to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters.

The case is the latest dispute involving religion to come before the conservative-led court. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years.

The Montgomery County public schools, in suburban Washington, D.C., introduced the storybooks as part of an effort to better reflect the district’s diverse population.

Parents sued after the school system stopped allowing them to pull their kids from lessons that included the books. The parents argue that public schools cannot force kids to participate in instruction that violates their faith, and they pointed to the opt-out provisions in sex education classes.

{snip}

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Go through life with blinders on and never know what you missed.

This is not parenting. It's sensory deprivation and stone cold negligence to enable children to understand the world and people they might encounter in life.

[valleyrogue]

2. They will likely win.

Parental signatures are typically required when there are books involved that are considered "controversial." I am thinking of reading lists for literature classes, for example.

The problem here is the description these classes are required. Parents have the right to opt out their kids no matter what we think about it.

[Johonny]

3. When bigotry fails, pretend it is religion

It always works.