The Supreme Court appeared to side with a group of Maryland parents who sued Montgomery County Public Schools for prohibiting parents from opting their children out of LGBTQ curricula.

The Court heard the oral arguments Tuesday. Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, the law firm representing the county parents, argued on behalf of a group of parents from various religious backgrounds, including evangelical Christian, Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim.

Previously, parents within the county could opt out of storybooks with LGBTQ content and were notified beforehand, which aligns with Maryland’s requirements, which state: “The local school system shall establish policies, guidelines, and/or procedures for student opt-out regarding instruction related to family life and human sexuality objectives.”

When the county school board initially announced its 20 “Pride Storybooks” to be read and incorporated in pre-K and elementary school classrooms, the board stated that parents would be alerted when such books were to be read, and parents could exempt their children from the readings.

One book centers on a little girl sharing with her mother that she identifies as a boy, and another involves a young girl giving a Valentine to another girl whom she is attracted to. And a book for 3- and 4-year-olds contains a word list including “intersex flag,” “[drag] queen” and the name of an LGBTQ activist and sex worker. The books task the reader to search for images relating to these words.

However, in March 2023, the school board announced it would no longer offer opt-outs and halted its parental notices.

Becket, on behalf of the Montgomery County parents whose religious convictions were in the crosshairs of the board’s policy, filed suit against the school district May 2023 on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

After a federal district court ruled for the school district, Becket brought the decision to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. But the appeals court also ruled in favor of Montgomery County. In September 2024, Becket appealed to the Supreme Court, which in January agreed to hear the case.

During the hearing, Alan Evan Schoenfeld, an attorney representing the school district, argued that children’s exposure to LGBTQ concepts at school does not violate parental rights.

“Each of these things is deeply offensive to some people of faith,” Schoenfeld said, “but learning about them is not a legally cognizable burden on free exercise.”

However, the court seemed to tilt in favor of the parents.

Contending with the argument that children aren’t mandated to believe the curriculum’s ideas, Chief Justice John Roberts addressed the vulnerability of children, saying, “Is that a realistic concept when you’re talking about a 5-year-old?”

The session referenced some of the books Montgomery schools read to its students, including a book about two male knights who fall in love with each other.

Justice Samuel Alito, referring to a book about a girl’s response to her uncle’s engagement to another man, stated, “I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men. It has a clear moral message.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh addressed the right for those with religious beliefs to be accommodated.

“The whole goal, I think, of some of our religion precedents, is to look for the win-win,” Kavanaugh said, “to look for the situation where you can respect the religious beliefs and accommodate the religious beliefs while the state or city or whatever it may be can pursue its goals.”

After the hearing, Billy Moges, a Christian mother involved in the lawsuit, vocalized the importance of parental rights.

“Schools should be working with parents, not against us. We are our children’s primary teachers, not obstacles to be avoided. Today, we asked the court to remind Montgomery County—and the entire nation—of this fundamental truth.”

Grace Morrison, another parent who sued, spoke on the gravity of the court’s decision in a press release.

“The School Board is pushing inappropriate gender theory on children and running roughshod over parental rights,” Morrison said. “Today, we urged the court to let kids be kids, and let parents guide their religious future. A child’s innocence, once lost, is gone forever.” 

First Liberty Institute, a Christian legal organization, filed a friend-of-the-court brief late last month. Other Christian organizations who joined the brief were Christian Legal Society, Focus on the Family and the National Association of Evangelicals. Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team and Agudath Israel of America also joined in the brief.

Kelly Shackelford, CEO and chief counsel at First Liberty, addressed the district’s aim to avoid adhering to Maryland’s law.

“Parents have the right to know what their children are being taught in school, especially when that material goes against their sincerely held religious beliefs,” said Shackelford. “By teaching sexual education in other classes, the school district is attempting to evade state law that allows parents to opt their children out of such topics.”

The court is expected to announce a decision by this summer.

Photo: Becket Facebook