Justices agree to hear Maryland case on parents' rights and LGBTQ books

(The Hill) — The Supreme Court said Friday it would review a case involving a group of Maryland parents who sued their children’s school district over its refusal to allow them to opt out of elementary school classes that use books with LGBTQ themes or characters. 

The parents, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, sued Montgomery County Public Schools in 2023 after the school district said it would no longer honor opt-out requests or notify families if a book referencing gender or sexuality would be read in class. Maryland’s largest school district announced in 2022 that revisions to its curriculum would include a new reading list of storybooks with young LGBTQ characters, part of a broader effort to foster diversity and inclusion. 

The books included “My Rainbow,” about a mother who makes a rainbow-colored wig for her transgender daughter, and “Love, Violet,” a story about a girl who develops a crush on her female classmate. Another book, “Pride Puppy!”, concerns a puppy who gets lost during a gay pride parade. 

Initially, the school board said it would allow parents to remove their children from the classroom when the books were read, but it changed course shortly after, touching off a wave of protests from parents who said the move violated their First Amendment rights. 

Three families sued the school system that May, arguing that preventing them from opting their children out of classes with LGBTQ-inclusive books infringed on their free exercise of religion. They are not challenging the curriculum or asking the school district to stop reading the books to other students. 

The lead plaintiffs in the case, Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, are Muslims who removed their elementary-aged son from public school after a district court sided with Montgomery County in August 2023. Other plaintiffs are members of the Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox churches. 

The parents, who twice lost their case before appealing to the Supreme Court, believe a person’s gender and sex at birth are “intertwined and inseparable” and “an integral part of God’s design,” according to court documents. They believe that they have a religious obligation to teach their children about 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 school district wrote in court filings that the disputed books are age-appropriate and “impart critical reading skills” to young students. They added that the families involved in the lawsuit had not offered any evidence that Montgomery County Public Schools pressured their children “to affirm or disavow particular views” or compelled them to act in violation of their religious beliefs. 

The justices approved the parents’ request to hear the case Friday in a brief, unsigned order.  

Last May, the Supreme Court declined to hear another case involving Montgomery County Public Schools. A separate group of parents sued the school district in 2020 over a policy meant to support transgender 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, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, said Friday in a statement. “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 Schools did not immediately return a request for comment. 

The dispute was one of five cases the Supreme Court agreed to hear Friday. It is poised to be the last batch of cases the justices will consider this term unless the court takes up a future case on an expedited timeline.  

The justices said they would also take up disputes involving student disability claims and combat disability payments, among other cases. 

Zach Schonfeld contributed.