Many local parents cheered the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling that parents, not school districts, decide if a child is exposed to controversial content related to sex and gender.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, decided last week, the Court held that the Montgomery County Board of Education’s policy of not allowing Muslim and Christian parents to opt their children out of instruction involving LGBT-themed storybooks violated the parents’ First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
“The Board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion. The parents have therefore shown that they are likely to succeed in their free exercise claims. They have likewise shown entitlement to a preliminary injunction pending the completion of this lawsuit,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion.
One of the books parents found objectionable was “Pride Puppy,” which was taught to children five and younger, and featured scenes from a gay pride parade, including references to a “drag queen.” The district’s attorney told the Supreme Court the book is no longer in the curriculum, bolstering the parents’ argument that it is not appropriate.
The district argued that allowing students to opt out of the LGBTQ curriculum would be too disruptive. However, the court noted the district has many other occasions where it allows students to opt out.
“To start, we cannot accept the Board’s characterization of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ instruction as mere ‘exposure to objectionable ideas’ or as lessons in ‘mutual respect,'” Alito wrote. “As we have explained, the storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.
“And the Board has specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. That goes far beyond mere ‘exposure.’”
Upper Darby parent Terry Tracy says he is thrilled by the decision. Asked why, he told DVJournal he “really can’t do better than Justice Alito: ‘A government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.'”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the dissent, in which she claimed the Court “invents a constitutional right” allowing parents to choose to keep their children home based on their religious values.
“Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’ themes “contrary to the religious principles” that parents wish to instill in their children.” Sotomayor wrote. “Exposing students to the ‘message’ that LGBTQ people exist, and that their loved ones may celebrate their marriages and life events, the majority says, is enough to trigger the most demanding form of judicial scrutiny.”
She added, “Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parent’s religious beliefs…The result will be chaos for this Nation’s public schools.”
Guy Ciarrocchi, a school choice advocate and former deputy attorney general, praised the court’s decision.
“If the education swamp had their way, they’d force public school students to be indoctrinated with whatever pseudo-religion or cultural cause is in fashion with the teachers’ union. The Supreme Court said, ‘No!’ Parents are the primary educators of the children. Parenting and sanity won.”
The Lower Merion School District Jewish Families Association offered a more measured response.
“We recognize the importance of ensuring that all students feel seen, safe and respected in the classroom. While we do not take a position on individual court rulings, we continue to support efforts that balance parental involvement with inclusive educational environments for every student.”
Jeremy Samek, senior counsel at the Independence Law Center called the decision “a critical victory for parental rights.”
“As articulated in our amicus brief, just as parents have the right to prevent coercion into specific religious doctrines, they also have the right to protect their children from gender-identity indoctrination in schools,” said Samek. Independence Law Center, a public interest law firm, is affiliated with the nonprofit Pennsylvania Family Institute.
Marlene Pray, executive director of the Rainbow Room in Bucks County, a club for LGBTQ+ kids from 14 to 21 that is affiliated with Planned Parenthood, declined to respond to a request for comment.
