Conservative Justices May Upend School District’s LGBTQ-Inclusive Lessons
U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments today in a case regarding religious parents’ objections to their students having to participate in a school district’s LGBTQ-inclusive language arts curriculum.
Conservative Christian, Jewish and Muslim parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, sued the public school district, alleging that, because they weren’t allowed to opt their children out of lessons featuring books with LGBTQ characters, it amounted to indoctrination and a violation of their religious and civil rights. The district, however, pointed out that the lessons didn’t contradict religious viewpoints, that they weren’t presented in an indoctrinating manner, and that it would be an administrative burden to deal with such opt-outs.
Requiring the district to let parents opt their children out of the curriculum could also stigmatize students who are LGBTQ or part of LGBTQ families.
Lower federal courts, including the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, have ruled in favor of the district’s arguments. However, on Tuesday, conservative justices of the Supreme Court seemed likely to rule in the religious parents’ favor.
“What’s the big deal about allowing them to opt out?” Justice Samuel Alito asked lawyers representing the school district.
“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” chimed in Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Liberal bloc Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back on the conservatives’ approach, while Elena Kagan, the third liberal justice of the court, seemed willing to entertain the parents’ arguments, showing some sympathy for the idea of an opt-out rule.
But Kagan also noted that such a move would introduce real challenges, including creating precedent for opting out of other kinds of curriculum. “Once we say something, it will be like opt-outs for everyone,” she said.
“I’m just wondering if that’s the next step here,” Kagan added.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that including the books in the curriculum amounted to indoctrination — that, because the school district was teaching them, they were saying “this is the right view of the world.”
Jackson disagreed with that reasoning, however, noting that past Supreme Court precedent rejected that viewpoint.
“Haven’t we made very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?” Jackson said.
Citing the books themselves — which included “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” featuring a character’s same-sex marriage, and “Born Ready,” a book about a trans child identifying as a boy, among others — Jackson further pointed out that none of the characters engage in anything sexual.
There’s no kissing within the books in question, she added — the “most they are doing is holding hands.”
The court’s 6-3 conservative majority, alongside the right-wing justices’ commentaries during oral arguments, indicates a high likelihood that they will side with the parents. Joe Dunman, assistant professor at the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law, noted that such a ruling would be hypocritical.
“The same Court that rejects the idea that religious discussions and displays can be coercive to non- and other-believers will likely rule that discussions and displays of LGBTQ+ existence are coercive to religious objectors,” Dunman wrote on Bluesky. “This is incoherent, results-driven doctrine.”
Imani Gandy, senior editor of law and policy at Rewire News Group, also criticized the Supreme Court, noting that, if the court does side with the parents, it will undoubtedly harm LGBTQ children or children who come from LGBTQ homes.
“This case is about telling queer kids they don’t belong,” Gandy said. “414 book ban attempts in 2024 ALONE. Now they’re weaponizing SCOTUS to scrub classrooms of the existence of LGBTQ+ people. Representation isn’t indoctrination.”