In early March, the Legal Insurrection Foundation (LIF) filed an amicus curiae, or friend-of-the-court, brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case concerning parental rights and the impact of some pretty gross LGBTQ+ instruction on (in some cases very young) children. The case also concerned whether denying parents the right to opt their children out of the instruction “burdened” their Constitutional right to the Free Exercise of Religion under the First Amendment. For review, see: Brief Supporting Parental Right to Opt Kids Out of “Gender and Sexuality” Instruction Filed by Legal Insurrection.
To summarize, our amicus brief, available here, argued that (i) parents’ right to control their children’s upbringing is a fundamental liberty that the lower courts had failed to honor, (ii) forcing children to attend and absorb LGBTQ+ instruction opposed to their religious upbringing burdens their and their parents free exercise of religion and (iii) it is settled law that a government entity may not force someone to choose between receiving a benefit (i.e. free public education) and adhering to their faith.
In late April, the Court held oral arguments and it seemed to go well for the parents. See our post on the subject: SCOTUS Seems Likely To Allow Parental Right to Opt Kids Out of “Gender and Sexuality” Instruction.
And now, Thank God, the Court has decided, 6-3, that:
[T]he parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. 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. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 218 (1972). And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction. Based on these principles, we conclude that the parents are likely to succeed in their challenge to the Board’s policies.
This means that the parents must, starting right now, be given the option to opt their kids out of LGBTQ+ instruction if they want.
It also means that the Court agreed with everything we argued in our amicus brief.
You can review the Supreme Court’s opinion here, and at the of this post (check out the pictures from some of the LGBTQ+ books).
From Fox News: Supreme Court decides whether to allow parents to shield children from LGBTQ books in school:
The Supreme Court held Friday that a group of Maryland parents are entitled to opt their children out of school lessons that could violate their beliefs in a case centered on religious freedom.
The justices decided 6-3 along ideological lines in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can exclude their children from a Maryland public school system’s lessons that contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel it conflicts with their religious faith.
“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,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.”
* * * *The Maryland parents who sued said in their petition to the high court that the school board introduced books to their elementary school students that promoted “gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance.”The parents said the school board initially allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons involving those books but then ceased doing that.They also said the presence of the books created “indirect pressure to forgo a religious practice,” which created enough of a burden to violate their religious freedom rights.The parents who brought the suit span a range of religious backgrounds. Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat are Muslim, while others fall under different denominations of Christianity…Rosalind Hanson, a member of the conservative group Moms for Liberty, told Fox News Digital during a recent interview in front of the Supreme Court that she and other parents who helped bring the case were “not trying to change the curriculum” for parents who did support their children being exposed to the books.”The majority of states across the country have said you can have an opt-out for these very sensitive issues and topics, especially because of the religious component, but also because of the age appropriateness,” Hanson said.
We here at Legal Insurrection would like to offer a heartfelt thanks and congratulations to Attorney Eric Hudson, a partner at the Terrazas Law Firm in Austin, Texas, who authored LIF’s amicus brief in this case on our behalf. He (obviously) did a great job and (obviously) strongly influenced the opinion of the Court in the right direction.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY