The Washington Stand: SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments on LGBT Book Readings in Elementary Schools

This article was written by Sarah Holliday and published in The Washington Stand.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Mahmoud v. Taylor — a case that marks not only a major step in the fight for parental rights, but also in protecting young children from LGBT-themed, sexually explicit material. Several justices appeared to lean toward the parents, signaling support for their claims.

The lawsuit emerged when Maryland parents, backed by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, decided to challenge Montgomery County Public Schools’ (MCPS) elementary story hours that promoted books on Pride parades, gender transitions, and LGBT themes. Determined to protect their children, these parents are demanding the right to opt out on religious grounds — a freedom the school district denies.

In Tuesday’s arguments, MCPS attorney Alan Schoenfeld defended the district’s decision to eliminate the opt-out policy, claiming it became “infeasible.” He argued that “every day in public elementary school classrooms, children are taught ideas that conflict with their family’s religious beliefs,” but insisted “MCPS makes explicitly clear that students do not need to accept, agree with or affirm anything they read or anything about their classmates’ beliefs or lives,” downplaying the impact on parents’ religious objections.

Chief Justice John Roberts sharply questioned Schoenfeld’s defense. “[Y]ou said that nothing in the policy requires students to affirm what’s being taught or what’s being presented in the books,” Roberts challenged. “Is that a realistic concept when you’re talking about a five-year-old?” His skepticism underscored the core issue dominating Tuesday’s hearing: the murky line between “exposure” and “coercion” in exposing young children to controversial ideas.

Read More