U.S. Supreme Court LGBTQ+ Book Case Is About More Than Just Books

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case on April 22 about whether parents have the right to opt out their children before LGBTQ+-inclusive books are read in public school classrooms. It's about more than just books, however, as newly filed amicus briefs show.

The case began when Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland added several LGBTQ+-inclusive picture books to its supplemental curriculum in 2022. The books had been evaluated by a committee of staff members through the district's usual process and were intended as optional titles for teachers to recommend or read to students if desired.

A group of parents, however, brought a lawsuit in 2023 against MCPS, claiming that the school violated their religious freedom by not giving them the chance to opt out their children from classroom readings of the books. The specific titles they named as objectionable were the picture books "Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope"; "IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All"; "Prince & Knight"; "Uncle Bobby's Wedding"; "Love, Violet"; "My Rainbow"; "Pride Puppy"; "Jacob's Room to Choose"; and "What Are Your Words?"

After a federal district court and appeals court both denied the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction that would have required the district to temporarily grant the parents' request, the parents asked the Supreme Court to take the case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, which it did.

We've seen a similar case before. In 2008, four parents claimed that the Lexington, Mass., public school district violated their constitutional rights by putting LGBTQ+-inclusive picture books in its elementary school curriculum. In that case, Parker v. Hurley, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous ruling wrote, "There is no free exercise [of religion] right to be free from any reference in public elementary schools to the existence of families in which the parents are of different gender combinations." The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

In Mahmoud, amicus briefs in defense of MCPS were filed in early April by most of the major LGBTQ+ organizations, along with numerous civil rights, educational, publishing, and faith organizations, plus a bevy of legal scholars, 19 attorneys general, and more. Here are a few of their arguments, showing some of the case's many ramifications.

A brief from GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the Human Rights Campaign, Family Equality, COLAGE, FreeState Justice, GLSEN, and The Trevor Project explains that the books help develop students' English language skills, but also "foster skills of civility and respect that are needed in a functioning school system and a healthy democracy." Conversely, LGBTQ+-only opt-outs "[send] a troubling message to students that some families are less worthy of acknowledgment and respect than others." Creating an opt-out system, too, "would impose an unworkable administrative burden on schools and undermine educators' ability to focus on their core teaching responsibilities."

PEN America, in its brief, adds that an opt-out scheme "would impose a significant burden on those who want to read and discuss LGBTQ+-inclusive books—a burden not imposed on those who want to read and discuss books about straight and cisgender people," meaning that "the injunction that Petitioners seek is a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name."

A brief from the Authors Guild, the Educational Book & Media Association, and Penguin Random House asserts that the plaintiffs "fail to recognize that merely exposing students to books that depict a range of family relationships and identities, including some that might fall outside the boundaries of some religious orthodoxies, does not rise to the level of indoctrination."

And a brief from the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Maryland elaborates that allowing religious exemptions from classroom material is a slippery slope. Parents could then object to Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night" "because a woman character pretends to be a man," or "Lessons in patriotism could be viewed by some people of faith as improperly elevating country over God." Additionally, "Others might object to their children being in the classroom for a peer's presentation on their family tree, if the family tree includes same-sex parents."

That last argument is key. It's a very small step between restricting books and restricting what children say about themselves and their families. And it is easy to see the case as part of a wider effort to erase LGBTQ+ identities, as exemplified in the recent presidential executive order declaring there are only two genders and the efforts to remove mentions of LGBTQ+ and other marginalized people from federal websites.

Eighteen of the authors and illustrators whose books are cited by the plaintiffs issued a statement in February, saying in part, "Children need to know that there are other people like them in the world, that they aren't alone, that their hopes and fears are shared by others. And they need the freedom to read about different people with different views." This "helps prepare them to be good citizens, to navigate and succeed in a complex and diverse world."

"We have been told about children hugging our books and carrying them everywhere they go," they shared.

These books matter because the children who see themselves and their world in them matter. Organizers of a Rally for Inclusive Education, to be held outside the court building on the day of the hearing, say on their website that the case is "about the soul of public education in the United States." That's true—but I'd add that it's also about the souls and selves of our country's children.

For more on the rally, visit liveinyourtruth.org/rally-registration.

Dana Rudolph is the founder and publisher of Mombian (mombian.com), a two-time GLAAD Media Award-winning blog for LGBTQ+ parents plus a searchable database of 1,700+ LGBTQ+ family books.