SCOTUS Hears Major Religious-Rights Case

The Supreme Court heard a major religious rights case Tuesday, and justices appeared likely to rule in favor of parents who want to pull their children from lessons with LGBTQ+ themes. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, a group of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Education—Maryland's largest—after their children were not allowed to opt out of lessons involving storybooks with LQBTQ+ characters and themes, Deseret News reports. The parents argued that their First Amendment rights were being interfered with. The district initially had an opt-out policy but it reversed it, saying it was unmanageable.

• During arguments on Tuesday, conservative justices asked Alan Schoenfeld, a lawyer for the school system, why the district couldn't accommodate the parents' requests, reports the Washington Post. "What's the big deal about allowing them to opt out?" asked Justice Samuel Alito. "I'm surprised this is the hill to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty," said Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who grew up in the district.

• The case centers on five storybooks, including Prince and Knight, in which two men fall in love after they rescue a kingdom, the AP reports. Love, Violet deals with a girl's crush on another girl. In Uncle Bobby's Wedding, a girl worries that her uncle won't have time for her after he marries another man. Alito said he had read the latter book. "It has a clear moral message," he said. "And it may be a good message. It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with."
• Eric Baxter, an attorney for the parents, and Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, representing the Trump administration, argued that parents were "being pressured to abandon or modify their religious beliefs to access public education," Politico reports. Baxter called the lessons "indoctrination." The parents are not seeking to have the books removed from schools, only to have their children opt out of the lessons.
• Schoenfeld argued that exposing children to the books does not interfere with their parents' right to religious freedom. The district "makes explicitly clear students do not need to accept, agree with, or affirm anything they read or anything about their classmates' beliefs or lives," he said, per Politico. Chief Justice John Roberts appeared skeptical of the argument, NBC News reports. "Is that a realistic concept when you are talking about a five-year-old?" he asked.
• Justice Elena Kagan expressed concerns that if the court sided with the parents, there could be "opt-outs for everyone," with parents choosing to take their children out of many lessons, potentially forcing districts to abandon some programs. The Post calls opting out of lessons involving LGBTQ+ themes "a significant expansion of the long-standing practice of allowing opt outs for reproductive health classes." A ruling is expected by early summer, the AP reports.

(More Supreme Court stories.)