In Scotus Brief, AG Campbell Defends Use Of LGBTQ+-Inclusive Books In Public Schools
BOSTON — Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell has co-led a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States to defend the discretion of public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, to incorporate LGBTQ+-inclusive books into their curricula without offering parents an opt-out option.
The brief was filed in support of the respondents in Mahmoud, et al. v. Taylor, et al. and argues that the use of curricula with LGBTQ+-inclusive books without an opt-out option falls within public schools' longstanding authority to foster safe learning environments and does not violate anyone's right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.
Although the case specifically focuses on policies of the Montgomery Country Board of Education, the Supreme Court's decision in the case could be consequential for public schools nationwide.
"Preparing our children to engage with and thrive in a diverse society is a central premise of education. Local school districts have the right to determine that the use of LGBTQ-inclusive books helps to foster inclusive learning environments for all our students," said AG Campbell. "I am proud to stand in defense of inclusive books, which teach our students to respect one another, regardless of, and without interfering with, their respective personal beliefs."
In March 2023, the Montgomery County Board of Education (Montgomery County) in Maryland adopted a mandatory K-5 language arts curriculum that included LGBTQ+-inclusive books and was designed to foster respect and tolerance for LGBTQ+ individuals. The petitioners filed a lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction challenging the policy, arguing that the lack of an opt-out option violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religious beliefs. They claimed a right to object to — and opt their children out of — the teaching of tolerance on religious grounds. In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision to deny the preliminary injunction, finding that the challenge concerned the mere exposure of petitioners' children to LGBTQ+-inclusive books through Montgomery County's curriculum, which did not interfere with the petitioners' free exercise rights. The Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments on the petitioners' challenge on April 22.
In filing the brief, the coalition urges the Supreme Court to reject the petitioners' challenge because Montgomery County's policies do not violate the Constitution.
Montgomery County's Policies Fall Within State and Local Governments' Authority to Shape Public Education and Create Safe and Inclusive Environments for Students
The coalition argues that Montgomery County's use of LGBTQ+-inclusive books is an effort to foster a safe and inclusive environment for students and protect LGBTQ+ students from harm. The coalition further asserts that this effort falls well-within the long-held and broad legal authority of state and local governments to shape public education and design educational environments that support the success of all students.
The coalition references research indicating that LGBTQ+ students experience disproportionate levels of harm from discrimination and bullying in schools. A 2022 study found that 68% of LGBTQ+ students reported feeling unsafe at school due to their sexual orientation or gender identity and that nearly all of LGBTQ+ students reported hearing homophobic language by peers.
The coalition also references research indicating that students with access to LGBTQ+-supportive school environments, including curriculum with LGBTQ+-related topics, have experienced less discrimination, better psychological wellbeing, and a greater sense of belonging at school. As such, Montgomery County's policies are also aligned with state laws designed to address discrimination and bullying in schools and create inclusive learning environments for all students.
While the petitioners argue they should be able to opt-out of the LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum because they are allowed to opt-out of sex-education classes, the coalition asserts that the LGBTQ+-inclusive books in question are not related to sex-education, but are rather designed to foster greater inclusivity and safety for LGBTQ+ individuals. By not allowing an opt-out option, Montgomery County affirms its commitment to inclusivity by teaching all students to treat LGBTQ+ individuals with dignity and respect, regardless of one's personal beliefs.
Mere Exposure To LGBTQ+-Inclusive Books Does Not Burden the Right to Free Exercise of Religion
The coalition asserts that, in accordance with the Fourth Circuit's findings, the only constitutional question presented at this preliminary stage of the case is whether the mere exposure of students to LGBTQ+-inclusive books in schools violates their parents' right to freely exercise their religion. Because such exposure to contrary views through LGBTQ+-inclusive books does not force or compel the petitioners to abandon or act against their religious beliefs, the coalition argues that — consistent with Supreme Court precedent — no constitutional violation has occurred in relation to Montgomery County's policy.
The coalition's amicus brief may be viewed in its entirety here.
Joining AG Campbell in co-leading the amicus brief is Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown. The amicus brief was also joined by the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.