Parents everywhere, regardless of political ideology, should rejoice today as the Supreme Court, once again, affirmed (6-3 in Mahmoud v. Taylor) the long-recognized constitutional principle that “parents have a right ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their children’ and that this right can be infringed by laws that pose ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.” We’ll refer to this as the Yoder principle, after the case that established it.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. As usual, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
The case is simple enough. The Montgomery County Board of Education (Board) was pushing for “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts to be read in school to promote its preferred view of human sexuality and acceptance. After initially agreeing to give parents an opt-out option, as is customary, it rescinded that option, seeking to force children to endure the indoctrination against their parents’ concerns.
Parents from different religious backgrounds sued and sought a preliminary injunction from the court to prevent the school from forcing this on their children. The district court denied the injunction, and the Fourth Circuit, in a divided decision, affirmed it.
But, praise God, the U.S. Supreme Court today decided, “Parents challenging the Board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction.”
The Court concluded that the Board’s policy “unconstitutionally burdens [the parents’] religious exercise” and stated, “They are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; the balance of equities tips in their favor; and an injunction would be in the public interest.”
Justice Alito wrote:
The Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs, substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners’ children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable. The books are unmistakably normative. They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.
The Court emphatically rejected the Board and the activists’ characterization of the material as harmless. They argued children were merely being exposed to objectionable ideas. The Court noted what most Americans know as obvious. “The storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender. And the Board has specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. That goes beyond mere ‘exposure.'”
In fact, it is interesting that one of the Board’s excuses for not providing an opt-out was that too many were objecting to the material. Yes, believe it or not, instead of understanding that the material is objectionable, they wanted to force students to think as they wished or face expulsion from school.
Perhaps the most critical pronouncement of the Court pertained to the Yoder principle discussed at the beginning. For no apparent reason, lower courts had limited the scope and application of the principle. But today, the court firmly rejected their misguided application, concluding, “Contrary to the suggestions of the courts below, Yoder embodies a robust principle of general applicability.” This sets a strong precedent that will have significant implications for lower courts going forward, thereby strengthening our religious liberties for generations to come.
The Court also addressed the Board’s callous reaction, which had argued before the Court that parents should send their children to private school if they did not want to be indoctrinated by public schools. “It is no answer that parents remain free to place their children in private school or to educate them at home,” wrote Justice Alito. “Public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot ‘condition’ its ‘availability’ on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.”
Having established the violation of First Amendment rights, the Court contemplates whether the Board can survive strict scrutiny, as required. It does not. The Board says it seeks to “maintain[] a school environment that is safe and conducive to learning for all students.” However, the Court states that, given the facts, that is not enough. “[T]he Board’s conduct in continuing to permit opt-outs in a variety of other circumstances undermines its assertion that its no-opt-out policy is necessary to serve that interest.”
Finally, the Court made sure that parents and children would not suffer injury as litigation continues, “Specifically, until all appellate review in this case is completed, the Board should be ordered to notify the petitioners in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.”
Such a strong opinion is sure to put not only the district involved here, but many others around the country, seeking to promote radical, liberal ideology in public schools, on notice. However, note that it all started with concerned parents raising their voices to fight back. That is why Concerned Women for America exists. Join us and unite your voice as we continue the fight for children and families.
