Parents can’t force a school district to let them remove their children from LGBTQ-themed classes, an appeals court has ruled.
Three parent groups and a parental rights group sued the Montgomery County Public Schools Board in Maryland after it announced 2022 classes.
They claimed that not being allowed to exclude children in kindergarten through 5th grade violated their First Amendment rights to religious freedom.
But the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals rejected their request for a preliminary injunction 2 to 1 because the parents failed to show how the policy would infringe on their rights.
Three parent groups and a parental rights group sued the Montgomery County Public Schools Board in Maryland after it removed LGBTQ course opt-outs.
They claimed that not being allowed to exclude their children from kindergarten through 5th grade violated their First Amendment rights to religious freedom.
The parents – a Muslim, a Christian and a Chinese – objected to their children being exposed to themes they said conflicted with their religion.
The English language arts curriculum’s reading list included books like Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, The Pride Puppy, and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope.
The litigants insisted that it was up to them to teach their children “what it means to be a man and a woman; the institution of marriage; human sexuality; and related themes.
What their children learn should be decided by them, not schools, they argued, also saying the material was too mature for young children.
Two of the three justices disagreed, holding that simply exposing children to ideas contrary to their faith was not in itself violative of the First Amendment.
Teaching children about topics they disagree with is “part of the trade-off parents make when they choose to send their children to public schools,” they wrote.
What their children learn should be decided by them, not schools, they argued, also saying the material was too mature for young children.
However, the decision could change once the courses are actually delivered, depending on how the courses were presented and their impact on students.
“We have no opinion as to whether the parents will be able to present sufficient evidence to support their various theories once they have had the opportunity to build a record of the circumstances surrounding the board’s decision and on how the challenged texts are actually used in schools,” wrote Justice Steven Agee on behalf of the majority.
“At this early stage, however, given the parents’ broad claims, the very onerous burden required to obtain a preliminary injunction, and the limited records available to us, we are compelled to affirm the district court’s order denying an injunction preliminary.”
Justice Marvin Quattlebaum wrote in a dissenting opinion that he would overturn the lower court’s decision if it were up to him.
The litigants insisted that it was up to them to teach their children “what it means to be a man and a woman; the institution of marriage; human sexuality; and related themes’
“The parents showed that the board’s decision to deny the religious exemption infringed on these parents’ rights to exercise their religion and direct the religious education of their children by making them choose between compromising their religious beliefs or renouncing to a public education for their children,” he wrote.
“I also find that the actions of the board, at least in this matter, 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 parent groups joined forces with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which financed and defended the failed lawsuit.
They should appeal to a higher court.