U.S. Supreme Court says Constitution guarantees parents the right to opt out of public school instruction that interferes with religious upbringing of children
On its last opinion day of the term, the Supreme Court sided with parents seeking notice and the opportunity to opt their children out of public school curriculum that conflicts with the parents’ religious beliefs.
In its ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the justices said stories for young children that celebrate same-sex marriage and affirm transgender identity are both “hostile” to parents whose religious beliefs reject those ideas and coercive to their children.
The 6-3 ruling overturns the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, granting a preliminary injunction. That injunction now entitles parents in this particular school district to receive both notice and the ability to opt out of instruction involving “LGBTQ+-inclusive” stories.
The parents are “likely to succeed on their claim that the Board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, because those policies interfere with the “rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.”
He explains in the decision:
A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses “a very real threat of undermining” the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.
Like many books targeted at young children, the books [in this case] are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.
…
[T]hese books impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are “hostile” to their parents’ religious beliefs. And the books exert upon children a psychological “pressure to conform” to their specific viewpoints.
Justice Alito emphasized that the ruling does not take a stance on the educational value of the storybook program or on the Board’s stated goals of teaching children to learn to live together in a multicultural society; nor does his opinion confer on parents a general right to control curriculum according to their religious beliefs.
He clarifies:
[W]hat the parents seek here is not the right to micromanage the public school curriculum, but rather to have their children opt out of a particular educational requirement that burdens their well-established right “to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children.”
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that that the decision went too far and offered too few guidelines to courts and public schools going forward, and may lead to “chaos in our Nation’s schools.” She writes:
Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parent’s beliefs. If [LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks are] sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny, then little is not.
In a statement on the ruling, BJC similarly reiterated the need to make sure public schools serve all people, including LGTBQ+ people, and accommodate religious differences. BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman said:
Today’s decision recognizes the importance of religious formation in the lives of children and the heavy responsibility of public schools to serve all families. … This decision does not provide a general right to veto or reshape public school curriculum based on religious objections or to undermine the educational mission of public schools and the shared civic space they represent.
For a deeper discussion on Mahmoud v. Taylor – including concerns about how to implement a ruling – check out episode 15 of season 6 of BJC’s Respecting Religion podcast, where Hollman and BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler discuss the difficult questions the case raises. They will also discuss the decision in the next episode.
