The role of parents in the education and moral formation of their children took center stage on Tuesday morning, as the Supreme Court heard over two hours of oral argument in its review of Mahmoud v. Taylor. 

The court’s resolution of the case — brought by a group of public-school parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, in defense of their right to opt their young children out of ideological indoctrination using sexually explicit materials celebrating same-sex “marriage,” the questionable process of gender transitioning and preferred pronouns — can reaffirm the crucial role of parents as primary educators of their children. 

As I explained last week for the Register, the Montgomery County School Board decided back in the fall of 2022 to weave a collection of “LGBTQI+-inclusive” storybooks into the language curriculum for its pre-K through elementary school students. Parents uncomfortable with exposing their children to themes in these books were told by the board that they would not be informed when the books would be read and could not opt their children out of any instruction involving the materials. A group of parents representing a range of faith traditions went to court, explaining that the “no opt-out policy” violates their rights under the Constitution. Although I am hesitant to make predictions on how the court will rule in any given case, a majority of the justices seem to appreciate the untenable situation facing the objecting families. 

The parents are represented by Becket, one of the nation’s premiere religious-liberty law firms. Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, deftly presented his clients’ case to the Supreme Court. Forcing parents to “submit their children to such instruction violates their religious beliefs and directly interferes with their ability to direct the religious upbringing of their children,” he explained in his opening remarks. “Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters.” 

Justice Clarence Thomas quickly chimed in, asking if the record shows how the storybook collection would be used. Thomas’ question is key as the lower court of appeals refused to grant the parents relief, arguing that the record was not fully developed regarding the role of the books in the school day. 

Baxter pointed to evidence in the record to establish widespread use in schools, including one elementary school that announced plans to read one book from the collection every day during the month of June in celebration of “Pride Month.” 

One surprise during oral argument came from liberal-leaning Justice Elena Kagan. She remarked, “I too was struck by — these are, you know, young kids’ picture books, and on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of nonreligious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this, and then you, you know, add in religion, and — and that’s, you know, even more serious.” 

For Kagan, the issue of “where we can draw lines” in allowing opt-outs was a major concern. Baxter’s response was sound: “We think there are lines that can be drawn there, the same lines that this court has drawn in every other free exercise case.” 

The Trump administration’s support of the parents is a welcome change. The Biden administration was either conspicuously absent in cases involving affronts to religious freedom or, worse, often took the side of the offending party. 

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who participated in Tuesday’s argument, focused on the legal impropriety of conditioning the “public benefit” of a public education on parents willfully ignoring interference with their religious beliefs. Harris also reiterated an important aspect of this case: The objecting parents were not asking for the books to be taken from the shelves, but instead simply that they could shield their children from instruction using them. 

Alan Schoenfeld, counsel for the Montgomery County School Board, had a tough time persuading many of the justices to simply defer to the school board and ignore the parents’ concerns. 

“What’s the big deal in not allowing an opt-out?” was a question raised first by Justice Samuel Alito and brought up again and again by some of his other colleagues. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who shared that he is a long-time resident of Montgomery County, was surprised that “this is the hill we’re going to die on” in light of the fact that the state of Maryland was “founded upon religious liberty and religious tolerance.” 

For example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a mother to school-age children, observed that the parents who filed suit are not merely objecting because their children are “exposed” to particular ideas but because the ideas in the collection are presented “as fact.” She added, “It’s saying, This is the right view of the world. This is how we think about things. This is how you should think about things. This is like 2 plus 2 is 4.”  

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson signaled clear opposition to the parents. Sotomayor peppered Baxter with a range of questions and hypotheticals, hoping to paint the parents as intolerant bigots. Baxter reiterated that his clients are not seeking to ban the books or control what is taught in school, but simply to opt their children out of being present to the indoctrination that is the purpose of these story books. 

After Sotomayor characterized Uncle Bobby’s Wedding — a book celebrating a same-sex wedding — as an innocuous story, Baxter deftly reminded her of the Supreme Court’s own language in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that created a constitutional right for homosexual persons to marry. That decision acknowledged that many Americans hold “decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises” about the nature of marriage — and affirmed that “the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are central to their lives and faiths.”

Meanwhile, Jackson made a particularly disturbing suggestion that, because the objecting parents have the option to send their children to private religious schools or to homeschool, the school board’s “no opt-out policy” lacks any coercive character. 

Parents in Montgomery County can run for school board and the school board has in place a process allowing for objections to curricula. These measures are not, however, the only avenues for objecting parents. As Kavanaugh pointed out, “we are here to protect the liberty and the Constitution from the democratic excess.” 

At a time when many of our country’s public schools are promoting ideas in the classroom that are at odds with traditional religious teaching on the nature of human sexuality, the Supreme Court’s resolution of Mahmoud v. Taylor can safeguard the central role of parents in the education and formation of their children.