Citing religious liberty, justices allow book opt-outs in public schools
In a major ruling on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with parents in a case involving religious freedom and public education.
The justices held that a group of Maryland parents can opt their children out of curriculum they say violates their religious beliefs while their lawsuit against the school district continues. The ruling broke 6-3 along the court鈥檚 ideological lines.
The high court鈥檚 opinion comes amid ongoing clashes over cultural issues and parental rights and, more broadly, the fundamental purpose of American public schools. In this case, , the conservative majority decided that the Montgomery County Board of Education infringed on parents鈥� First Amendment rights by preventing them from withdrawing their children from instruction involving LGBTQ-themed books.
Why We Wrote This
In a closely watched case about religious freedom and public education, the Supreme Court sided with parents who wanted to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed materials.
The Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents that filed the lawsuit argue the board鈥檚 policy violates their right to exercise their religion freely. In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said that they are likely to succeed with their claims.
The Supreme Court has 鈥渓ong recognized the rights of parents to direct 鈥榯he religious upbringing鈥� of their children,鈥欌�� he wrote. 鈥淎nd we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that 鈥榮ubstantially interfer[e] with the religious development鈥� of children.鈥�
The decision is a step in the right direction, says Neal McCluskey, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute.
鈥淚t鈥檚 better than not allowing opt-outs, in terms of freedom,鈥� he says. Now, 鈥淎t least if you think something鈥檚 being imposed on your kids in violation of your religion, you can remove them from that lesson.鈥�
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, disagreeing with the notion that the decision simply upholds high court precedent. The ruling, she wrote, will have a much broader impact.
鈥淭he Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to 鈥榮ubtle鈥� themes 鈥榗ontrary to the religious principles鈥� that parents wish to instill in their children,鈥� she added. 鈥淭he result will be chaos for this Nation鈥檚 public schools.鈥�
Justin Driver, a Yale Law School professor who was a co-author of a brief in support of the school board, agrees.
This decision 鈥渟ucceeds in opening Pandora鈥檚 box in countless classrooms located in our nation鈥檚 public schools,鈥� he said in an email. 鈥淚t unwisely grants parents and students the authority to, in effect, veto individual school lessons and assignments, thereby wreaking educational havoc.鈥�
Parents right and a controversial curriculum
The curriculum at issue in the case is a selection of 鈥淟GBTQ-inclusive鈥� picture books to be taught for students from kindergarten through fifth grade. The books have titles such as 鈥淧ride Puppy,鈥� 鈥淯ncle Bobby鈥檚 Wedding,鈥� and 鈥淚ntersection Allies,鈥� which address gender and sexuality.
The stories are about 鈥渁 family attending a Pride parade, a niece meeting her uncle鈥檚 husband-to-be, a prince falling in love with a knight as they battle a dragon in a mythical kingdom, a girl feeling nervous about giving a valentine to her crush, and a transgender boy sharing his gender identity with his family,鈥� according to a legal filing by the Montgomery County Board of Education and superintendent.
The school board argues that the books, which were approved for English language arts instruction in elementary schools, align with its attempts to better represent the diversity of students and families. Montgomery County Public Schools, the largest district in Maryland, serves just shy of 160,000 students outside Washington, D.C., and is one of the most religiously diverse places in the United States.
The school district said the books aren鈥檛 used in any lessons about gender or sexuality. 鈥淣or is any student asked or expected to change his or her views about his or her own, or any other student鈥檚, sexual orientation or gender,鈥� their brief states.
Parents from diverse faith backgrounds, however, want to be able to pull their children from any instruction using the books. In the majority opinion, Justice Alito said they have that right. The books at issue, he wrote, are 鈥渃learly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.鈥�
The board鈥檚 policy, he noted, 鈥渆ncourages teachers to correct children and accuse them of being 鈥榟urtful鈥� when they express a degree of religious confusion.鈥�
鈥淲hat the parents seek here is not the right to micromanage the public school curriculum, but rather to have their children opt out of a particular educational requirement that burdens their well-established right 鈥榯o direct 鈥渢he religious upbringing鈥� of their children,鈥欌�� he concluded.
Unlimited opt-outs?
Countering that assertion, the court鈥檚 three liberal justices voiced concerns about the slippery slope the ruling may create. Does it tee up an avalanche of lawsuits demanding faith-based opt-outs from other coursework, from evolution to women鈥檚 roles in society?
鈥淣ever, in the context of public schools or elsewhere, has this Court held that mere exposure to concepts inconsistent with one鈥檚 religious beliefs could give rise to a First Amendment claim,鈥� says Justice Sotomayor in her dissent.
The majority opinion creates 鈥渁 very amorphous standard,鈥� says Ira Lupu, a professor emeritus at George Washington University Law School who co-signed an amicus brief in support of the school board.
The opinion made 鈥渘o attempt鈥� to limit its holding to LGBTQ+ issues, he adds.
That, he suggests, upends precedent that parents could not object simply to their children鈥檚 exposure to ideas their parents disagree with. 鈥淭his has been the law for 40 years. ... If it鈥檚 only exposure, and not compelled affirmation of some kind, then your religious freedom is not undermined.鈥�
In a press call shortly after the opinion came down, Grace Morrison, a Montgomery County mother of a child with Down syndrome, called the ruling a triumph for families.
鈥淕iven [my daughter鈥檚] learning challenges, she struggles to grasp why her parents and teachers might disagree,鈥� says Ms. Morrison. 鈥淯nfortunately, we had to remove her from the school to protect her from that confusion, a sacrifice that no parent should be forced to make.鈥�
A chilling effect is also likely, says Mr. McCluskey from the Cato Institute.
鈥淲hat I expect we鈥檒l continue to see is that if a public school serves a population that has a lot of disagreement about topics,鈥� he says, 鈥渢hey鈥檒l tend to avoid topics that are controversial.鈥�
