The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of more inclusive readings in a Maryland school district.
The case stems from religious objections by parents to a few LGBTQ-themed books being included in their children’s elementary-school reading list. A range of storybooks on the reading list are offered for reading as part of regular language-arts instruction.
“The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take up a dispute over whether a Maryland school district violated parents’ religious rights when it declined to allow them to opt their elementary school children out of instruction involving storybooks about gender and sexuality,” CBS News reported in January. “The dispute centers around a decision by the Montgomery County School Board to end opt-out requests and notice requirements for the reading and discussion of storybooks that feature LGBTQ characters.”
Among the books were “Pride Puppy,” about a dog that gets lost at a Pride parade, and “Jacob’s Room to Choose,” about transgender children. The lower courts declined to issue an order that would require the county to notify the parents when the storybooks would be used and provide them a chance to opt out of instruction. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reasoned that due to the “threadbare” record before it, the parents had not convincingly demonstrated that exposing their children to such books was a violation of their religion. The hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled for Tuesday, April 22.
FFRF’s brief urges the Supreme Court to side with the Montgomery County School Board.
The parents primarily advance two arguments: a “religious hostility” claim and an argument that marries the Free Exercise Clause with Due Process rights, FFRF’s brief notes. “Both arguments should be rejected.”
The brief presents three primary arguments. First, it says that the parents fail to point to a single case that overturns a facially neutral policy solely based on allegations of a legislative motive hostile to religion. Second, it asserts that the courts have made this clear over the years: Parents do not have a Free Exercise or Due Process right to block students from being exposed to objectionable classroom material. Third, petitioners have also not alleged enough to warrant a preliminary injunction.
Parents should not have the constitutional right to diminish their children’s education based solely on what they dislike, FFRF explains. Such a rule has boundless scope, since almost any book or idea could contradict religious ideals. Ultimately, students would be worse off with any rule allowing parents to micromanage every aspect of their education.
Additionally, the suggested rule of the parents — that parents have a constitutional right to exempt students from any coursework they don’t like — has boundless scope. It simply cannot be a constitutional right if public schools are to function properly, or if students are to receive a comprehensive education. Even children’s books wouldn’t even escape that rule. “Charlotte’s Web” depicts talking animals that some find blasphemous. “Alexander and the Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Day” mentions a potentially objectionable “kissing scene.” It’s no wonder that the circuit courts have rejected such a rule.
The threadbare record in the case does not necessitate a preliminary injunction, the FFRF brief avers. The record is insubstantial in two ways. The Supreme Court has little to consider when analyzing a preliminary injunction. And the record does not meet the high watermark of the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder — the parents simply do not allege the same kind of burden that the Old Order Amish demonstrated when seeking to opt out of Wisconsin’s public-school system.
For all of the above reasons, the Freedom From Religion Foundation urges the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against the Montgomery County parents and their objections to more inclusive school readings.
“If the parents in this case get the win they want from the Supreme Court, the real loss will be felt by every public school student,” notes FFRF Litigation Attorney Sam Grover. “School districts will most likely have to cut countless classic literary works from their curricula to avoid potential religious objections. Instead, the Supreme Court should decline to create a constitutional right for parents to pick and choose what lessons are taught in public schools.”
The full FFRF brief can be read here.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is the largest national association of freethinkers, representing atheists, agnostics, and others who form their opinions about religion based on reason rather than faith, tradition, or authority. Founded in Wisconsin in 1978 as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, FFRF has more than 42,000 members, including members in every state and the District of Columbia. FFRF’s primary purposes are to educate about nontheism and to preserve the cherished constitutional principle of separation between religion and government.
