- Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland have added books to the reading list
- Three groups of parents claimed this infringed on their religious freedom and filed a lawsuit
- A court ruled against them because the claims were too vague because the class had not yet started
Parents cannot force a school district to pull their children from classes with LGBTQ themes, an appeals court has ruled.
Three parent groups and a parenting rights group sued the Montgomery County Public Schools board in Maryland after it announced 2022 classes.
They claimed that their failure to opt out of preschool for fifth-grade children violated their First Amendment rights to religious freedom.
But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied their request for a preliminary injunction 2-1, saying the parents failed to show how the policy would violate their rights.
Three parent groups and a parenting rights group are suing the board of Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland after it removed opt-outs from LGBTQ classes
They claimed that not allowing them to opt out of preschool for 5th grade children violated their First Amendment rights to religious freedom
The parents – one Muslim, one Christian and one Chinese – objected to their children being exposed to themes that they believed conflicted with their religion.
The reading list for the English language arts curriculum included books such as Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, The Pride Puppy and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope.
Litigants insisted that it was up to them to teach their children “what it means to be husband and wife; the institution of marriage; human sexuality; and related themes’.
What their children learn should be decided by them, not the schools, they argued, also claiming that the curriculum was too mature for young children.
Two of the three justices disagreed, ruling that simply exposing children to ideas contrary to their faith did not in itself violate the First Amendment.
Children learning about issues they disagree with is “part of the compromise parents make when they choose to send their children to public schools,” they wrote.
What their children learn should be decided by them, not the schools, they argued, also claiming that the curriculum was too mature for young children.
However, the decision may change once the lessons are actually taught, depending on the way the lessons are presented and its effect on the students.
“We have no view as to whether the parents will be able to present evidence sufficient to support any of their various theories once they have the opportunity to prepare a report on the circumstances surrounding the decision of the board and how the disputed texts are actually used in the investigation. schools,” Justice Steven Agee wrote for the majority.
“At this early stage, however, given the parents’ broad claims, the very high burden required to obtain a preliminary injunction, and the scant data before us, we are compelled to deny the district court’s order confirm rejecting a preliminary injunction.’
Judge Marvin Quattlebaum wrote in a dissent that he would reverse the lower court’s decision if it were up to him alone.
Litigants insisted that it was up to them to teach their children “what it means to be husband and wife; the institution of marriage; human sexuality; and related themes’
“The parents have demonstrated that the board’s decision to deny religious opt-outs undermines these parents’ right to practice their religion and direct the religious education of their children by giving them the choice of either endanger their religious beliefs or forego public education for their children. children,” he wrote.
“I also believe that the board’s actions, at least based on this data, were neither neutral nor generally applicable.”
Both judges were appointed by Republican presidents — Agree by George W. Bush and Quattlebaum by Donald Trump.
The three parents joined forces with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which financed and litigated the failed lawsuit.
They are expected to appeal to a higher court.