Supreme Court hears major case on public school curriculum and parental rights

Amna Nawaz:

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in a major case focused on parental rights and public schools.

At the center of the case is a dispute over curriculum in Montgomery County, Maryland, a Washington, D.C., suburb. In 2022, the county school board adopted a new language arts curriculum that included books featuring LGBTQ characters, including a picture book about a dog who gets lost at a Pride parade and others featuring transgender children.

Some parents asked for their children to be opted out from the curriculum because the books conflicted with their religious beliefs. The board stopped allowing opt-outs the next year, arguing they were unmanageable and undermined their obligation to foster inclusive environments. That decision sparked protests and outrage from some parents in the community, some of whom were outside the court today.

Svitlana Roman, Montgomery County Parent:

We, on behalf of other parents sharing our faith, ask the Supreme Court to stand up for the rights of our children in accordance — for us to raise our children in accordance with our faith and protect them from instruction on controversial topics that go against our deeply held religious beliefs.

Amna Nawaz:

The justices' decision could have major consequences for public schools nationwide.

To explore today's arguments, I'm joined now by "News Hour" Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle.

Great to see you, Marcia.

Marcia Coyle:

Good to see you, Amna.

Amna Nawaz:

So, before we jump into the details, just big picture, what stood out to you from the arguments today?

Marcia Coyle:

Justice Kavanaugh made a comment. He said, with religion cases, the court generally looks for a win-win, meaning both sides come away with something. There's — no one is a big loser.

But my sense was, after today's arguments, there's no way yet that they found a win-win. They're looking for a rule, a line to draw, so that, as Justice Kagan says, you don't suddenly have opt-outs for everything in public schools, or, as the parents — or as the school board's attorney was asked, why do you want to die on this hill of no opt-outs?

So the court is struggling here, and I think it's going to take them a lot of discussion.

Amna Nawaz:

Unclear where that line is right now.

Marcia Coyle:

Yes, exactly.

Amna Nawaz:

Well, there was some division display among the justices, as you said.

I just want to play a part of what Justice Alito and Justice Jackson had to say on this today.

Samuel Alito, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice:

The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with.

Ketanji Brown Jackson, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice:

I guess I'm struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with. You have a choice. You don't have to send your kid to that school. You can put them in another situation. You can homeschool them. How is it a burden on the parent if they have the option to send their kid elsewhere?

Amna Nawaz:

Marcia, what do those arguments reveal to you about how they're thinking about this? And do you get a sense of which way they're leaning?

Marcia Coyle:

My sense was — and I hate to predict on arguments at all — but my sense was there may be more sentiment for the parents here than for the school board.

Justice Alito's comments, he was most skeptical of the school board and the books and what the books convey, especially to pre-K students and kindergarten students,whereas Justice Jackson was looking at the law here. Courts have said that exposure of ideas that — some may object to because of their religious beliefs, that does not violate the free exercise clause in the First Amendment.

So the court spent most of the time, well over an hour, discussing, is this exposure through these books or is it a burden, is it coercion? So we're going back and forth with many hypotheticals about gay teachers, the books themselves showing a wedding of two men, and whether they're just exposing these kids to these ideas.

The school board claims that these books are really designed to encourage civility and respect for others.

Amna Nawaz:

And in those hypotheticals, sort of leads me to my next question, which, if the court does rule in the parents' favor, what are we talking about in terms of the impact this could have on public schools nationwide?

Marcia Coyle:

Well, if they rule in favor of the parents, certainly, you're going to see more opt-outs in situations like this.

Now, opt-outs are fairly common in high schools for certain reasons. You see them in — most often in health classes involving sex education, obviously. But as Justice Kagan pointed out, you might also see opt-outs requested for the teaching of evolution in biology and other reasons.

But, still, you may see more opt-outs on the basis of religious beliefs. For the school boards too, though, it could be — if they lose, it could be an administrative nightmare. They say these books are part of the English language curriculum. It's not a single unit like sex education in a health class.

So having kids moving in or out, trying to arrange when that happens, alternative education plans, could really create problems for schools. And Justice Jackson also pointed out that, if the parents win, she worries that local control of education is eroded, and you're going to find judges then deciding what books can be used — what kind of books burden religion.

And she didn't think that — obviously think that was the right role for judges.

Amna Nawaz:

Yes, Marcia, it's worth pointing out the court is hearing another case related to religion and schools next week. You have the 6-3 conservative majority that has backed religious rights arguments in the past.

When you take a step back, what role is the Roberts court playing when it comes to religious rights debates in this country?

Marcia Coyle:

Amna, I think that this is going to be one of the legacies of the Roberts court since the chief justice joined in 2005. You have three religion cases this term. They are in very different contexts.

But the Roberts court has shown a trend of pushing for a greater government accommodation of religion. And they have done that by elevating the free exercise clause over that other very important clause, the Establishment Clause and that clause's concerns about government entanglement with religion.

And I think that's something we will see a little more dramatically next week when they take up the religious charter school case.

Amna Nawaz:

All right, we will be waiting and watching. That is "News Hour"'s Supreme Court analyst, Marcia Coyle.

Marcia, thank you. Always great to have you here.

Marcia Coyle:

Always a pleasure. Thank you.