SCOTUS NEWS
By Amy Howe
on 17 January 2025
at 4:25 p.m
The court added five cases to its docket Friday afternoon. (Katie Barlow)
The Supreme Court will decide whether a group of Maryland parents can choose to exempt their children from LGBTQ-themed history books. The judges granted Friday afternoon Mahmoud v. Taylorwhere a coalition of parents from Montgomery County, Md., contends that requiring their children to attend classes that violate their religious beliefs violates their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
The announcement once again puts justice at the center of the culture wars. It came just over six weeks after the justices heard oral arguments in a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. In that case, three transgender teenagers and their parents claim that the ban violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. They had asked the court to also decide whether the law infringes on parents’ right to make decisions about their children’s medical care, but the justices declined to take up that issue.
The controversy over the history books has its roots in the county’s 2022 approval of books featuring LGBTQ characters for inclusion in its language arts curriculum. A book used for young children, Pride puppytells the story of a puppy who gets lost during an LGBTQ Pride parade.
When the county announced in 2023 that it would not allow parents to opt out of classes involving the history books, a group of Muslim, Jewish and Christian parents went to federal court.
The lower courts declined to issue an order that would have temporarily required the county to notify parents when the history books would be used and give them a chance to opt out of instruction. The US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit explained that the parents had not shown that exposure to the history books forced them to violate their religion on the “threadbare” record.
The parents came to the Supreme Court in September, and the judges agreed on Friday to weigh in.
The dispute over parental rights was one of five cases granted Friday afternoon, all of which are likely to be heard in the spring at the end of the court’s current term.
IN AJT v. Osseo Area Schoolsthe court agreed to weight the standard of review when children with disabilities allege discrimination in education. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that the children must show that school officials acted in “bad faith or gross misjudgment,” but the plaintiff in the case — a teenage girl who suffers from severe epilepsy — argues that a less stringent standard applies .
IN Parrish v. United Statesthe judges will decide a procedural question on appeal. Specifically, when a claimant files a notice of appeal after the time to do so has expired, does he have to file a new notice when the appeal period reopens?
IN Soto v. United Statesthe judges agreed to decide a technical issue related to compensation for combat veterans.
And in Bowe v. United Statesthe justices will consider procedural issues arising from the application of the federal laws governing post-conviction relief for federal prisoners.
The justices did not act on some of the other high-profile cases they considered at Friday’s conference, including the challenge to Maryland’s assault rifle ban and a group of cases challenging a law passed to improve safety in the horse racing industry. The judges could act in these cases as early as Tuesday at 9.30.
This article was originally published on Howe on the Court.
