Gender ideologues are no match for parents of faith.

On Easter Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case brought by a group of parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, who object to the indoctrination of their pre-K-through-eighth-grade children. The courageous defense of their children’s formation in Mahmoud v. Taylor can advance both religious freedom and parental rights under the law in our public schools.

In the fall of 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education decided to weave a collection of LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks throughout the literature curriculum for their youngest learners. The collection promotes “Pride” parades, gender transitioning and pronoun preferences to young learners ranging in age from 3 to 14.

Maryland, like most states across America, requires schools to notify parents when their children will be given classes discussing family life and human sexuality and respects parents’ right to opt their children out of such instruction.

At first, parents in Montgomery County were, consistent with this law, told they would be notified when the books from the “Pride” collection were to be read and could opt their children out. The board, however, later reversed this position, issuing a statement that it would not notify parents or honor requests to opt out of anything other than the sex-education unit.

A group of parents from diverse religious traditions objected. They believe that the books are age-inappropriate and emotionally damaging for young children.

More than 800 school administrators from Montgomery County agreed and sent a letter to school district leaders. The parents — and this is crucial — also believe the books are inconsistent with their religious beliefs, not to mention biological science. Without knowing when the books would be read to their children and unable to opt them out of exposure, a group of parents filed a lawsuit.

Catholic mom Grace Morrison is among the parents who sued. She and her husband Eric adopted their youngest daughter, a girl with special learning needs (including Down syndrome, ADHD and behavioral issues), from Ukraine in 2013.

Although the couple home-schooled their older children, the Morrisons enrolled their daughter in the county’s pre-K program when she was 3 years old. When Grace learned about the storybooks from a neighbor, she sent an email to her daughter’s teacher. The teacher confirmed that the materials would be presented in the classroom. A school official later informed Grace that she wouldn’t be informed when the books would be read and could not opt her daughter out. With no other recourse, the Morrisons decided to pull their daughter from public school and home-school her instead. Consequently, they have taken on many of their daughter’s therapy needs previously met in school. They estimate the additional costs total more than $25,000 annually.

A district court ruled against Grace and the other parents, concluding that they could not show that the school board’s “no-opt-out policy” burdens their religious exercise. A divided 4th Circuit panel agreed, ruling that, in the absence of any “coercive effect,” there is no burden on religious exercise. Despite these initial losses, the parents were undeterred and successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case this term.

Becket, one of the nation’s premier religious liberty law firms, is representing the parents. In papers filed with the Court, it observes that “public schools have long recognized the primacy of parents in instructing their children on sensitive matters of gender and sexuality.” It adds that “this history and tradition compel the conclusion that forced instruction on such religiously sensitive matters would substantially interfere with children’s religious formation and their parents’ own religious exercise of guiding that development.” And, finally, it concludes that “any contrary answer would break the bond between parent and child on matters that strike at the heart of parental authority. That is incompatible with the Free Exercise’s guarantee that parents’ right to control the religious upbringing of their children is ‘beyond debate.’”

Unlike the Biden administration, which ignored the plight of the families, the Trump administration has submitted an amicus brief in support of the parents and will participate in Tuesday morning’s oral argument. Thirty-nine additional groups also filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in support of the Montgomery County parents’ simple quest to shield their children from what is “antithetical to what they teach at home.” The brief filed by Princeton’s Robert George on behalf of Notre Dame’s parental rights scholar Melissa Moschella sums up perfectly the legal stakes: “This case presents an important and timely opportunity for the Court to clarify the confused and historically inaccurate state of current parental rights jurisprudence.”

I couldn’t agree more.

For far too long, our public-school system has been a breeding ground for ideologies that have nothing to do with academic formation or morality but instead undermine their love for God and country as well as their ties to family and even their own bodies. The Supreme Court’s vindication of religious freedom and parental rights in Mahmoud v. Taylor would be an important step toward restoring sanity to our nation’s public schools.