Three years ago, Montgomery County, Maryland approved several books that include LGBTQ characters for use in public school classrooms. Not much else is known about these books, how they have been used, when used in lessons, or how teachers will use them in the future.
These questions came before the lower court, but the Supreme Court decided to hear the case – Mahmoudv. Taylorbrought to you by conservative Muslim and Christian parents who find these books uncomfortable. These lower courts had the opportunity to sort out whether someone's constitutional rights were in fact violated.
Despite all this uncertainty, all six Supreme Court Republicans appeared to have absolutely convinced them in their oral debate on Tuesday that the Montgomery County School District had violated the Constitution and had to do more to protect parents who oppose these books on religious grounds.
Based on Tuesday's discussion Muffmoodparents who challenge these books seem almost certain that the court will rule that they must be permitted to remove children from the class in which the book is featured. What is less clear is whether the courts do so in a way that could put all public schools in the state's functional capacity at risk.
Eric Baxter, a lawyer representing parents against these books, appeared to be extremely encouraging and advocated for highly destructive outcomes during Tuesday's discussion. In his brief, Baxter suggested that parents who oppose classroom instruction for religious reasons must notify them in advance of their instructions and be allowed to oust their children from the class.
The meaning of this argument is breathtaking. As Judge Sonia Sotomayor pointed out, past cases include parents who oppose lessons that touch on topics such as divorce, interfaith couples, and “refuge dresses.” Parents filed a federal lawsuit challenging the government to use their own numbers to identify people in their own internal records for religious reasons. They opposed lessons that exposed children to evolution, pacifism, magic, women who accomplish things outside the home, and ideas about achieving “false views of death.”
To avoid these lawsuits, under Baxter's proposed rules, the district is obliged to notify parents in advance when teaching books that have magic, books that have divorces, books that have women's achievements, or books that teach famous pacifists such as Martin Luther King Jr. It's hard to imagine how public schools can comply with such duties.
That said, it seemed very likely that all six Republicans would control the school district. Muffmoodsome of them seemed to be looking for a way to determine this case more narrowly than Baxter proposed.
For example, Judge Samuel Alito suggested that at some point Baxter's rules could only apply to very young students, or only to lessons that touch sexuality. Judge Neil Gorsuch pointed to a suspected statement from a school board member. This argues that Gorsuch has shown anise to certain religious beliefs. Following Gorsuch's idea of conclusion, the court can rule that Montgomery County's policies must be changed because they are rooted in Animus, but other school districts may be allowed to enact similar policies unless they show similar hostility towards religion.
So there seems to be little doubt that the school district will lose. Muffmood Cases can be lost in ways that do not put the instruction of public schools across the United States at risk.
The court appeared to be divided into four camps.
Broadly speaking, justice has emerged four different approaches to this case.
All the Democrats in the court, Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, focused on the issue of “drawing” that the case presented. Kagan understood that even non-religious parents might oppose “young children” who could be taught “on issues regarding sexuality,” but she added that there is nothing in Baxter's argument that allows the court to limit claims by parents who want to suppress school lessons.
Similarly, Jackson was troubled by how Baxter's argument seemed so broad that it could prevent a gay teacher from displaying his wedding photos, or even prevent the teacher from mentioning a trans child by the pronouns of his child's preferences in the presence of another student whose parents oppose trans people on religious grounds.
However, these concerns were largely limited to democratic minorities in the courts. The other six justice appeared to be looking for a way to control the school district.
The most extreme of these six Republicans was Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He said at one point that he was “mystood as a longtime resident” of Montgomery County. As the Supreme Court said Lyngv. NorthwestIndian Cemetery (1988), the first amendment simply prohibits government actions that “inclines to force individuals to act against religious beliefs.” But at some point Kavanaugh seemed to suggest something excessive. Lin And parents who have religiously challenged the lesson decide that they must show a “burden” on their faith, but Kavanaugh will define the term.
Meanwhile, both Alito and Secretary John Roberts appeared to think there was something particularly harmful about exposing young people to books about gay characters. For example, Alito argued that older students understand that teachers are not always right. So it's fine if those students are exposed to lessons that are tense about their parents' religious beliefs. However, a different rule should apply to younger students.
Similarly, Roberts argued that exposing kindergarten children to lessons that parents might object to is “dangerous.”
Meanwhile, Gorsuch flipped over into several lines with Baxter's brief. This argues that school board members compared parents against the literature that included LGBTQ to “white supremacists” and “Xenophobes.” This is important in Masterpiece Cake Shop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the court agreed with a baker who refused to bake marriage cakes for same-sex couples as state civil rights commissioners made similarly condemning comments about the baker.
Under the Gorsuch approach, in other words, the courts Muffmood Very narrow, without giving a ruling in favour of parents for alleged comments from members of this school board and conveying broader rules that impose unfeasible disclosure rules for all public schools in the country.
Therefore, the court may communicate these specific Montgomery County parents this ride-only decision to give them the outcome they want without harming public education elsewhere. It could also allow courts to impose a kind of “no gay” rule on primary school teachers, allowing high school teachers to reveal that they form romantic attachments to people of the same sex.
The court was more cautious about rules that hinder the functioning of public schools.
One surprising omission in Tuesday's discussion is that no one mentions the court's decision. Tinkerv. DesMoines Independent Community School District (1969) a free speech incident brought about by students wearing black armbands in their classes to protest the Vietnam War.
in Tinkerthe court held that these students were entitled to wear black armbands, but the students simply engaged in “silent and passive expressions of opinions” that were not accompanied by disabilities or disabilities on the part of the petitioner. Tinker Public school students retain the right to free speech, but do not believe that speeches are “substantially disrupting classwork or involve substantial obstacles or violations of the rights of others.”
In other words, the court recognized that public schools would not function if students were able to engage in speeches that disrupt lessons, and created careful rules that respect students' first right to amendments without honing the school's educational capabilities.
The court can take a similar approach Muffmood. The full facts of this incident are yet to be known, and in fact it may turn out that teachers have tried to force students to reject religious beliefs or have attempted to act in a way that violates constitutional protections for religious people. If it turns out to be true, the court should absolutely provide appropriate relief to the student and its parents.
But instead of waiting until they know all the facts Muffmood Cases and crafts with properly adjusted rules as announced Tinkermuch of the judiciary seemed to be more leaning towards a hamhand approach. Based on Tuesday's argument, it's difficult to guess whether Kavanaugh, Alito's, Gorsuch's or any other approach will win. However, if Justice chooses to fully embrace Baxter's argument, they can easily impose an obligation on public schools that does not prevent them from functioning.
