During oral arguments, questioning from Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas appeared to lean toward parental rights
Andrew Rice
The Center Square
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide a landmark case regarding the rights of parents to opt their children out of certain lessons related to gender and sexuality.
Mahmoud v. Taylor is a case coming out of Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland. In 2022, the school district approved reading materials exploring themes of gender identity and sexuality.
These books were included in curriculums for kindergarten and pre-kindergarten students in the school system. Initially, schools allowed parents to be notified and given the option to opt-out of the curriculum.
However, in March 2023, the school board eliminated its notice and opt-out options. Groups of parents from various religious backgrounds sued the board, arguing it violated their parental rights and religious freedom.
“We have a right to determine the upbringing of our kids,” said Alleigh Marre, executive director of the American Parents Coalition.
“There should always be that protection in place,” Marre said about parental opt-out options. “That’s why you saw so many different groups of people coming out in support of that position,” she added.
During oral arguments, questioning from Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas appeared to lean toward parental rights.
Kavanaugh took issue with certain Maryland counties allowing parents to opt-out of curriculum related to sexuality in a health class setting but not applying that same standard to books on sexuality and gender identity.
“The other Maryland counties have opt-outs for all sorts of things. And yet, for this one thing, they changed in midyear and say no more opt-outs,” Kavanaugh said.
Kavanaugh said the goal in decisions regarding religion is “to look for the situation where you can respect the religious beliefs while the state or city or whatever it may be can pursue its goals.”
“Here, they’re not asking you to change what’s taught in the classroom,” Kavanaugh added. “They’re only seeking to be able to walk out so the parents don’t have their children exposed to these things that are contrary to their own beliefs,” he said.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed hesitant to uphold parents’ challenge against the school board. The justices cautioned against withholding materials in schools based on personally held beliefs among parents.
“We have a lot of sincerely held beliefs and concerns and children and principals,” Jackson said. “I see all of those things so I want to be careful about making the pronouncement that relates to this,” she added.
Marre said the unity between parents of different faiths and the varying content standards in different counties will help bolster the parents’ arguments.
“I think we’ll see that ruling side in the favor of those parents and sanity,” Marre said.
This report was first published by The Center Square.
Andrew Rice is an intern reporter and member of the 2025 Searle Freedom Trust and Young America’s Foundation National Journalism Center Apprentice and Internship initiative.
Also read:
- POLL: Should councilors serving on boards be required to vote the way the full council decides?
A new poll asks whether Clark County councilors serving on boards should be required to vote in line with the full council’s position or retain independent judgment. - Ninth Circuit revives claims against prosecutor who personally swore to warrant affidavit containing alleged false statements
The Ninth Circuit ruled that prosecutorial immunity does not apply when a prosecutor personally swears to alleged false statements used to obtain an arrest warrant. - VIDEO: Washington lawmakers clash over bills directed at limiting ICE officers
A heated House committee hearing on legislation aimed at limiting ICE officers in Washington was temporarily recessed after sharp exchanges between lawmakers over testimony and procedural disputes. - Stung by a court ruling, WA looks to clarify what is an ‘election’
Washington lawmakers are moving to clarify the legal definition of an election after a court overturned a felony conviction for voting in both Washington and Oregon on the same day. - Opinion: Olympia wants a 4-day work week. It won’t work out as the politicians think it will
Mark Harmsworth argues that House Bill 2611’s proposed 32-hour workweek would raise costs, strain small businesses, and undermine Washington’s economic competitiveness. - Republicans celebrate school choice in US Senate hearing, while Dems question fairness
Republicans and Democrats clashed during a U.S. Senate hearing over school choice, with supporters praising expanded options for families and critics warning the policies could deepen inequities in public education. - Opinion: The many reminders not to speed
Doug Dahl examines the many technological and policy-based reminders aimed at reducing speeding and explains why most drivers still choose not to use them voluntarily.
