Case: Mahmoud v. McKnight, No. 23-1890, 2024 WL 5487218 (4th Cir. May 15, 2024)
Introduction
In a notable case that could have wide-reaching implications for public education and parental rights, a group of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, is suing the local Board of Education. The dispute centers around the inclusion of LGBTQ-themed books in elementary school curriculums and the Board’s refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of these readings.
Issue
The key legal issue is whether the Montgomery County Board of Education’s policy, which mandates the use of LGBTQ-inclusive books without providing an opt-out option for parents, infringes on the plaintiffs’ rights to religious freedom and parental control over their children’s education.
Rule
The case hinges on interpretations of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals’ rights to practice their religion freely, while the Due Process Clause encompasses the right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Wisconsin v. Yoder and Employment Division v. Smith are pivotal in this context.
Application
The plaintiffs, represented by several parents and the organization Kids First, argue that the Board’s policy violates their constitutional rights by exposing their children to ideas that contradict their religious beliefs. They draw parallels to Yoder, where the Supreme Court allowed Amish parents to withdraw their children from public high schools due to conflicting religious beliefs. Here, the parents claim that being forced to expose their young children to LGBTQ themes imposes a similar burden on their religious exercise.
The district court, however, denied their request for a preliminary injunction. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient burden on their religious exercise to warrant such relief. The ruling emphasized that parents remain free to instruct their children on their religious beliefs and to discuss how those beliefs differ from what is presented in the school books. Moreover, the court pointed out that the record lacked concrete evidence showing that the children’s exposure to these books significantly pressured them to alter their religious beliefs or practices.
The court applied the standard from Smith, which generally allows neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religion to withstand constitutional scrutiny. Since the Board’s policy applied to all students regardless of their religious beliefs, the court concluded that it did not target religious practices specifically and was, therefore, constitutionally permissible.
Dissent
Judge Quattlebaum dissented, arguing that the policy did indeed impose a substantial burden on the parents’ religious exercise. He contended that the mandatory exposure to LGBTQ themes, without an opt-out option, amounted to coercion, especially for young and impressionable children. Quattlebaum cited the Supreme Court’s recognition in Lee v. Weisman of the heightened sensitivity required in handling religious matters in the context of public schooling for younger children. He asserted that the policy’s lack of accommodations for religious objections was tantamount to forcing the children to accept beliefs that contradicted their families’ religious teachings, thus justifying a stricter scrutiny of the policy.
Conclusion
The case, now on appeal, has garnered significant national attention and has seen the involvement of numerous high-profile attorneys and influential advocacy groups. Supporting the parents who are seeking to opt their children out of this curriculum are conservative and religious organizations such as the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Advancing American Freedom, Inc., the American Family Association Action, and various state attorneys general from conservative states like Texas and Alabama. On the other side, advocating for the school district are progressive and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National Education Association, with support from state attorneys general from liberal states such as California, New York, and Massachusetts. Leading law firms like WilmerHale and Sullivan & Cromwell provided legal representation for the district, underscoring the case’s broader implications on educational policy, religious freedom, and civil rights. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit deliberates, the case highlights the ongoing cultural and legal debates surrounding public education and the intersection of religion and LGBTQ+ rights in America.