Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that parents with religious objections to books with LGBTQ + characters should be authorized to withdraw their children from any public school instruction which uses these books. The decision in Mahmoud c. Taylor Was transmitted according to party parties, with the six majority Republicans and the three Democrats in dissent.
THE Mahmoud The case highlights the impatience of republican judges to redo constitutional law in a more socially conservative image, Especially in cases involving religion. It is certainly possible for the teaching of public schools to violate the constitutional rights of a religious child. The Constitution, for example, prohibits government institutions and public schools from constraining students to violate their religious opinions. As judge Samuel Alito notes in the Mahmoud opinion, the constitution Prohibit teachers from openly making fun of a student’s faith.
But, as a federal court of appeal which had previously heard the Mahmoud Case has warned, we do not really know if the Constitution has been raped in this case. Although the county of Montgomery, Maryland, has approved several books with LGBTQ + characters to use in public schools, the lower court concluded that the file in this case does not contain any information “On the way in which a teacher or an employee of the school really used one of the stories in children’s classrooms, how often the books of stories are really used, which all children has been taught in conjunction with their use, or what conversations have followed on their themes.”
Nevertheless, Alito has made a fairly broad opinion which is likely to impose new substantial burdens on public schools, and he did so that the file in this case was more entirely developed by the lower courts. The result is that many schools may find it difficult to comply with the new obligations that have just been imposed, and most schools are likely to exclude books that introduce queer themes or even mention the LGBTQ +characters.
For what Mahmoud Imposes a serious burden on public schools
The complainants in Mahmoud Include Muslim and Christian parents who do not want their children to be exposed to these books. And their lawyers came to the Supreme Court with a daring – The search for a general decision according to which parents who oppose any form of class teaching on religious reasons must be informed in advance and be authorized to withdraw their child from this instruction.
The problem with this request is that schools cannot know in advance, what religious opinions are held by parents and which books or lessons that these parents could find reprehensible. In the past, parents have continued the school districts opposing, for religious reasons, to lessons that affect subjects as various As a divorce, interfaith couples and “immodest dress”. They opposed books that expose readers to evolution, pacifism, magic, women doing things outside the house and “false views of death”.
The courts have Historically has been very careful On the decision in favor of parents who raise this type of objections, partly due to the concerns that schools would be overwhelmed by the administrative burden.
However, the court’s decision in Mahmoud Large embraces the request of the complainants – Alito orders the school board to inform parents “in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book must be used in any way and allow them to exclude their children from this instruction.”
Alito’s opinion does not discuss how this rule should apply to parents with rarer religious beliefs, but the Constitution prohibited the government The treatment of people with idiosyncratic religious beliefs differently from people with more common beliefs. The result is that a school may also need to warn parents if a teacher wants to read in a Harry Potter book (because these books are on magic), or if they want to teach a lesson on a famous pacifist like Martin Luther King Schools may even need to warn parents if one of the teachers of his children is women, just in case a relative of women with women with women.
That said, Alito’s opinion is slightly narrower than the Mahmoud Proposed executive of applicants. Alito maintains that the books in question are reprehensible, not only because they present LGBTQ +characters, but because they suggest that certain aspects of queer culture should be “celebrated”. One of the disputed books is a medieval fairy tale on a prince who marries a knight. According to Alito, the book “says that” on the wedding day of the two men, the air filled with joy and laughter, because the prince and his brilliant knight would live happy forever. »»
Thus, says Alito, this book is reprehensible not because he understands a homosexual marriage, but because he depicts this marriage as a good thing. As part of Alito, a book that presented a homosexual marriage without describing it as desirable may not trigger the new rule. Likewise, Alito would probably allow women to work as a teacher without warning parents of their femininity, as long as the teacher does nothing to celebrate their femininity or suggest that being a woman who works outside the house is a good thing.
However, schools will probably have trouble determining when they are required to warn parents of a particular lesson under Mahmoud. And schools that trace the line in the wrong place may now be trained in an expensive trial.
Schools are likely to be reluctant to teach books with queer themes or characters
A very likely consequence of Mahmoud Will schools be very reluctant to teach a lesson that mentions homosexuality, transgender people or everything related to queer sexuality or gender identity. Mahmoud is likely to impose a Florida style “don’t say gay” Regime on each public school class in America.
The reason is quite simple. Although it is not clear how Mahmoud Apply to parents who oppose fantastic novels or women who work, the decision clearly limits the ability of schools to teach books with queer characters. It is not clear either when a book crosses the line to simply mention a gay character in the celebration of certain aspects of gay culture. Thus, schools wishing to avoid prosecution will have to completely exclude these types of books in their class.
Lawyers, on the other hand, have a financial incentive to pursue schools that behave more daring. Federal law generally authorizes the “dominantIn a trial for civil rights to perceive the fees of lawyer for the losing party. And costumes applying Mahmoud are considered to be civil rights affairs because they arise under the provisions of religious freedom of the first amendment.
Thus, lawyers can search for schools that teach books with LGBTQ +characters, find a parent who opposes these books, then continue and demand that the school district pays their customers’ invoices. School districts that do not want to be treated as an automatic counter for anti-LGBTQ +lawyers, on the other hand, will not be able to avoid these prosecution by entirely excluding books on the theme of the class queer.
In other words, the Supreme Court has decided that to welcome an identity group – religious conservatives – schools should be hypercarian about the teaching of books who present members of another identity group – LGBTQ +people. Given the republican majority of the court, this decision is not a surprise. But it is likely to impose very difficult loads.
