Supreme Court ruling wasn’t the final word, as debate on LGBTQ books opt-out goes on

Wael Elkoshari, a parent pushing for a religious opt-out for instructions involving LGBTQ+ curriculum and books, speaks in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in April, when justices heard arguments in a Montgomery County case. (Photo by Danielle J. Brown/Maryland Matters)

Harford County Public Schools Superintendent Sean Bulson knows that school administrators “should be thrilled that parents want to be involved” in their children’s education.

Bulson also knows that there can be a point when parents get too involved, acknowledging the potential administrative burden of trying to anticipate everything that a parent might find objectionable in the classroom...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-not-final-070446901.html

Supreme Court says parents can pull kids from classes with LGBTQ-themed books

The 6-3 ruling blocks Montgomery County policy that prevented opt-outs; dissent says ruling will create ‘chaos’ for school systems

The U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory Friday to Montgomery County parents who object, for religious reasons, to the school system’s use of LGBTQ+-themed books in classrooms, saying parents should be allowed to opt their children out of such classes.

The 6-3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor sent the case back to lower courts for a full hearing, but the majority left little doubt where it stands on the issue, with Justice Samuel Alito writing for the court that the parents have “shown that they are very likely to succeed in their free exercise” of religion claims.

“The Board’s introduction of the LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks into the literature curriculum, along with its decision to deny opt-outs as it does for other topics, “places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion,” Alito wrote.

“The Board should be ordered to notify them [parents] in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction,” the majority opinion said. Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

In a sharp, 38-page dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor — joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — said the majority’s ruling would create “chaos” for the nation’s public schools, which will be required to “provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs.”..

https://marylandmatters.org/2025/06/27/supreme-court-says-parents-can-pull-kids-from-classes-with-lgbtq-themed-books/

Montgomery County’s unneeded Supreme Court fight

 

“What’s the big deal?” This was the very pertinent question posed by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. during Tuesday’s oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor. Why has the defendant — the Montgomery County, Maryland, school district — come before the Supreme Court with what should have been a minor administrative issue?

In 2022, Montgomery County introduced into its language arts curriculum a set of books that affirm LGBTQ+ identities. As with other material that might conflict with families’ religious values, such as sex education, the district allowed parents an opt-out. Then, it abruptly rescinded that option and refused to reconsider, even after some parents sued.

This is how Alan Schoenfeld, the school district’s lawyer, ended up in court trying to explain to Alito why the district was unable to accommodate parents with religious objections. “The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum,” Alito pointed out. “They’re just saying, look, we want out. Why isn’t that feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?”

Schoenfeld tried to argue that the administrative burden was too great but, when asked why it was so much greater than the opt-outs available for health class, he appeared to struggle, finally responding that those opt-outs were mandated by state law, whereas the reading opt-outs were not...

https://wapo.st/4lM34Ok

NYT Opinion: My School District Could Have Avoided This Supreme Court Case

...I begrudge the public money wasted on expensive lawyers. I can’t fathom that we squandered so much energy fighting over storybooks even as our kids’ test scores foundered, absenteeism soared and student mental health slumped in the wake of the pandemic.

I can’t decide which conceit is more delusional: The school district grandstanding about social tolerance while forcing a minority of religious families to engage with books they consider immoral or the religious parents claiming that they can’t properly rear their children in faith if the kids get exposed to a few picture books. Both positions, it seems to me, rest on a cartoonishly inflated sense of school’s influence on children. And both seek an ideologically purified classroom while underestimating the sweep of ideas and information kids absorb simply by existing in our world.

Most of all, I feel that our community’s failure to resolve a thoroughly predictable tension with the time-tested tools of straight talk, compromise and extending one another a little grace has made for a demoralizing spectacle. And I can’t help but notice that our district, in its clumsy efforts to force tolerance, might have given the Supreme Court an opening to repress L.G.B.T.Q.-related speech in the nation’s schools...

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/opinion/lgbtq-books-supreme-court.html?searchResultPosition=3