Muslim and Christian parents in Maryland sued the state regarding their inability to opt out of the elementary school curriculum. They argued that their inability to do so violates both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, which include their right to determine the religious upbringing of their children.
In October 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education (Board) announced that through its regular curriculum process, the Board had approved a group of LGBTQ-inclusive books as part of the English Language Arts curriculum. Although the individual contents vary, the books as a whole express their authors’ views on sexual orientation and gender identity through characters in different situations. Teachers were given wide latitude as to how and when to use the books although they were not able to elect to not use them at all. Teachers were also provided with supporting materials to assist them in responding to potential questions the books might generate.
Initially, parents/caregivers were provided with notice and the ability to opt out through agreements with individual principals and teachers. If the opt-out was elected, the teacher was to find a substitute book with the same language arts standards and objectives. However, in March 2023, the Board announced that a notice and opt-out option was no longer permitted although old requests were grandfathered in. Apparently, individual schools could not accommodate the growing number of opt-out requests (many of which the Board claims were not religious in nature) without causing significant disruptions to the classroom. For instance, students were initially excused from class if the books were read aloud. This quickly became infeasible for teachers. Thus, the 2023-2024 academic year was the first full year where no notice or opt-out option was available.
Almost immediately some parents, teachers and administrators began voicing concerns about the appropriateness of the books. Some were based on religious grounds. Others were based on claims that the books had age-inappropriate content in that some words were being used without definitions. Some parents/caregivers then sought to have their children exempted from the books, believing that the books constituted an effort to teach students about sex, lessons about LGBTQ issues, or other age-inappropriate issues.
Eventually, six parents and an association called “Kids First” sued the Board over its refusal to provide notice and an opportunity to opt out of their children’s exposure to certain books and related discussions alleging that it violated state and federal law. The parents requested a preliminary injunction requiring the Board to provide the requested notice and opt-out option. When the district court denied their motion, the parents appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Twenty-three states, religious organizations, and other groups filed amicus briefs in support of the parents and 19 states, the ACLU and other civil rights organizations, and various Maryland educational associations filed amicus briefs in support of the Board of Education.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit took no position on whether the parents would be able to present sufficient evidence to support any of their claims. Given the early stage of the litigation, the parents’ broad claims, and the very high burden to obtain a preliminary injunction, the Fourth Circuit could only look at what they called the “scant” record before them on appeal. It noted that the record below provided little explanation of how the books have been or would be integrated into the larger collection of books offered as part of the Language Arts curriculum. Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit determined that at present, there was no evidence that the failure to provide an opt-out compels the parents or their children to change their religious beliefs or conduct. Thus far, the parents have not shown that the Board's decision affects what they teach their own children. As such, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction. It is important to note, though, that the Fourth Circuit also concluded that the parents had not yet presented evidence establishing their burden of proof for obtaining a preliminary injunction.
As a result, Muslim, Christian, and Jewish parents in Mahmoud v. Taylor are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether parents should be allowed under the First Amendment to remove their child from instruction that they say goes against their religious beliefs. They argue that the inability to do so violates “parents’ right to protect their children’s innocence and direct their religious upbringing.” The Supreme Court will decide whether it will hear the case. As it is already set to hear two education-related cases, and since it only accepts approximately 80 out of 7,000-8,000 petitions, it will be interesting to see whether the Court also wants to address religious beliefs in the context of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. --- Lisa M. Hawrot
South Carolina Supreme Court Deals Blow to Private School Scholarships