U.S.A. Supreme Court to debate if elementary schools may skip parental notice for LGBTQ+ reading

For Billy Moges, the dispute with a Washington, DC-area school district over the inclusion of LGBTQ+ books in elementary school curriculum is deeply rooted in faith.

“We have no hate for anyone,” stated Moges, one of the Christian parents who filed a lawsuit against Maryland’s largest school district regarding this policy, a case now set for Supreme Court review. “We’re saying that we, as parents, do not want our children to be exposed to these ideas at this age because they’re not ready for it.”

However, for Montgomery County Public Schools and civil rights organisations, conceding to Moges’ demands would create significant administrative challenges, requiring educators to predict and notify parents of any classroom discussions potentially conflicting with religious beliefs.

According to ‘CNN’, the U.S.A. Supreme Court will consider these arguments during Tuesday’s session on what is the most consequential religious case they've addressed in years. The proceeding encompasses issues such as trans rights, parental influence on school curricula, and the intersection of faith and public education.

The parents partly reference a 1972 precedent wherein the Supreme Court permitted Amish families to withdraw their children from school after the eighth grade, despite Wisconsin’s mandate for school attendance until age 16.

The 6-3 conservative Supreme Court has consistently favoured religious interests recently, allowing a high school coach to pray on the field, endorsing state funding for religious schools, and supporting a Catholic foster care agency that refused to work with same-sex couples.

Moges, who founded the group Kids First to oppose the district’s book policy, emphasises that she only seeks to allow parents with religious objections to exempt their children from these readings. Most states, including Maryland, already permit parents to opt out of sex education for their children.

Initially, Montgomery County schools allowed such opt-outs but later deemed them “unworkable.”

“Some schools, for instance, faced unsustainably high absentee rates,” the district noted in a recent brief to the justices. “The frequent movement of students in and out of classrooms would also disrupt the learning environment.”

As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County approved a selection of books in 2022, central to the current case. One book, ‘Prince & Knight,’ narrates a prince who, after ignoring potential princesses, bonds with a knight over a dragon-slaying adventure, leading to love met with joy by the king and queen.

Another book, ‘Born Ready,’ follows Penelope, who enjoys skateboarding and wearing loose jeans. When Penelope reveals his male identity to his mother, she accepts him, and when his brother questions gender identity, their mother reassures them both, focusing on love despite confusion.

The district asserted to the court that these books are utilised like others: available on shelves for students to discover and possibly incorporated into reading groups or read-alouds by teachers.

Moges and other opposing parents challenge the idea that the books are not actively used.

“This case was never about books merely sitting on a shelf,” said Michael O’Brien, legal counsel at the religious legal organisation Becket, representing the parents.

The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favour of the schools last year, finding the evidence insufficient at the early litigation stage to prove that the material infringed on the parents’ religious rights.

The majority judges were appointed by Presidents George W. Bush and Joe Biden, while the dissenting judge was appointed by President Donald Trump.

The parents draw heavily from the pivotal 1972 Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which Amish parents contended that mandatory school attendance beyond eighth grade conflicted with their religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court concluded that these religious beliefs took precedence over the state’s law enforcement interests.

Conversely, the district and allies argue that merely exposing students to certain concepts does not burden religious exercise, as it fails to show coercion to believe or act against one's faith.

The school’s supporters argue that learning about LGBTQ+ characters in literature imposes no such coercion.

“Schools are tasked with educating all members of society, and they cannot segment the curriculum based on individual religious beliefs,” said Jason Walta, deputy general counsel at the National Education Association, which filed a supportive brief. “This approach is fundamental to sustaining a pluralistic democracy.”

Some allies of the district reference a recent Supreme Court decision that favoured a coach who lost his job after public prayers, emphasising the importance of tolerating diverse expressions as part of living in a pluralistic society.

In that case, the conservative justices reinstated Joe Kennedy, known as the “praying coach.” Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, asserted that learning to tolerate diverse speech or prayer is crucial for developing characteristics essential to a tolerant citizenry. Offensive ideas do not equate to coercion, he emphasised.

Those supporting the school district argue that aligning this reasoning with a decision favouring the parents would be challenging for the Supreme Court.

Kennedy returned to coaching in Seattle but resigned after only one game.