Samuel Alito Says LGBTQ+ Books in School Pose a 'Very Real Threat'

Newsweek

20 hours ago

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito quoted a five-decades-old case in a decision Friday that favored parents fighting to opt their children out of instruction involving LGBTQ+ books.
Why It Matters
The case Mahmoud v. Taylor was brought forward May 24, 2023, to the U.S. District Court of Maryland after parents of different religious persuasions claimed that the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) district in Rockville, Maryland, was forcing their pre-K and elementary age children to read LGBTQ+ books.
Plaintiffs, which include Christian, Jewish and Muslim parents, argued that their right to religious expression and in turn their First Amendment rights were violated after the school district took away an "opt-out" option for parents uncomfortable with the reading selections in their children's classrooms.
What To Know
The case was argued on April 22 of this year. Today's 6-3 decision was issued along party lines.
In his issued opinion on behalf of the majority, Alito describes the petitioners as parents who come "from diverse religious backgrounds and hold sincere views on sexuality and gender which they wish to pass on to their children."
"Today, we hold that the parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction," Alito wrote. "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."
Those petitioners, said Alito, heavily relied heavily on the 1972 Supreme Court case Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which members of the Old Order Amish religion and the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church challenged a conviction of violating Wisconsin's school attendance law by declining to send their children to public or private school after they had graduated from the eighth grade.
Newly donated LGBTQ+ books are displayed in the library at Nystrom Elementary School on May 17, 2022 in Richmond, California.
Newly donated LGBTQ+ books are displayed in the library at Nystrom Elementary School on May 17, 2022 in Richmond, California.Alito said the Court in that decision recognized that parents have a right "to direct the religious upbringing of their children" and that such a right can be infringed by laws posing such threats.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, states that this decision "threatens the very essence of public education."
"[Public schools] offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society," Sotomayor wrote. "That experience is critical to our nation's civic vitality."
Asma Uddin, a professor, lawyer and fellow at the Faith and Media Initiative, told Newsweek via phone that the case is really about pluralism and understanding that this isn't just a question of protecting religious belief or religious exercise but goes beyond that.
"Involved in this curriculum is this desire to be inclusive and diverse and to present a fuller idea of the many ways that people are, but it's sort of inherently contradictory when you have that type of curriculum and don't also allow space for dissent," Uddin said. "Because even as the Court pointed out, a true sort of embrace of pluralism is when you create space for these sorts of disagreements as well."
Reverend Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, president and CEO of Interfaith Alliance, a national organization that defends religious freedom and multi-faith democracy, told Newsweek via phone that the decision sets "a really terrible precedent" for the future of public education.
"I am grateful that in my kids' school they actually learned stories about all kinds of different people, and that other kids get to hear stories about my family," Raushenbush said. "I'm gay and have a husband and we have a family. The opportunity is for public schools to be a really critical building block, even foundation of democracy, where we learn about one another.
"We agree that we are different, but that we learn that we will be living side by side and treat one another with respect and understanding."
But he says that now, due to decisions like these, it "essentially allows people to opt out of that democracy and that vision of a future together."
"It's very distressing for me and sad," he said.
He questioned the ramifications of the Court's argument, wondering whether books with Muslim or Jewish characters will be censored in the same vein—or classics from Toni Morrison, or famous literature like To Kill a Mockingbird.
The lack of opening these different proverbial doors to youth is very dangerous for building a diverse democracy, he added.
"We already are seeing the kind of disintegration of the tapestry that makes up America," Raushenbush said. "The fabric is tearing and this tears it further.
"What we really need right now are people who are willing to stitch it together and to find ways that we use different colors. These different races, these different identities of all kinds, are actually stitched together in a beautiful tapestry that represents truly the American promise for all."
Uddin said it's not just a question of exposure to ideas but the fact that ideas then seep into a space where there's perhaps sort of normative messaging happening, which creates the religious burden.
The facts of any case also differ, she noted, mentioning how this specific school district took away the option for parents to opt-out if uncomfortable. She doesn't expect "slippery slope consequences" to occur.
"You can't say something is really important and then give all kinds of other exceptions. … I think that's going to have wide implications in the way that other courts will think about this," Uddin said. "But even before we get to the courts, the way that school districts will design their policies—they're going to think twice about having this total procedural and flexibility, a lack of notice, lack of opt-outs now that the Court has spoken to the constitutional significance of what Montgomery County did."
What People Are Saying
A spokesperson for the Montgomery Board of Education and Montgomery County Public Schools shared the following statement with Newsweek: "Today's decision is not the outcome we hoped for or worked toward. It marks a significant challenge for public education nationwide. In Montgomery County Public Schools, we will determine next steps and navigate this moment with integrity and purpose—guided, as always, by our shared values of learning, relationships, respect, excellence, and equity."
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon on X: "The Supreme Court's ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor is a major win for religious liberty and parental rights. The Court rightfully held that schools can't shut parents out or disregard their religious obligations to their children. A great day for parents and education champions!"
The Heritage Foundation on X: "The Supreme Court's decision in this case is a major victory for parental rights."
Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor in a statement: "This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights. It has grave ramifications for the teaching of evolution, for example. Public schools must be grounded in facts and reality and not subject to religious censors."