A group of Montgomery County, Maryland parents has escalated their fight against the local school system’s LGBTQ+- book policy to the nation’s highest court. Last week, they petitioned the Supreme Court to review the school system’s refusal to allow them to opt their children out of classes using LGBTQ+ books in lower elementary grades.

The petition argues that the school’s policy infringes on parents’ religious liberty rights by exposing their children to gender and sexuality norms that contradict their religious beliefs. The parents, who include Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox families, claim the policy offers “no protection against forced participation in ideological instruction by government schools.”

This legal battle began two years ago when Montgomery County Schools introduced a list of “LGBTQ+-inclusive texts for use in the classroom,” including books for kindergarten and pre-K. While not part of a mandatory reading list, these books can be used by teachers in classroom instruction.

At the heart of the controversy are seven books for lower grades. These include titles such as “My Rainbow,” which tells the story of a mother creating a rainbow-colored wig for her transgender child, and “Pride Puppy,” about a puppy lost at a Pride parade. The latter, intended for kindergarten and pre-K, invites students to search for drag kings and queens, lip rings, leather, and underwear, according to court documents.

Initially, parents were allowed to opt their children out of lessons featuring these books. However, in March 2023, the school system announced that opt-outs would no longer be permitted starting in the 2023-24 school year. This policy shift sparked the lawsuit from parents objecting on both religious and secular grounds.

The parents stress that they are not trying to ban the books outright but argue that without an opt-out option, they are being forced to expose their children to ideas conflicting with their firmly held religious beliefs.

So far, the case has faced setbacks in lower courts. A federal district judge denied the parents’ request for a preliminary injunction in August 2023. This decision was upheld by a divided panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May. The majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee, stated that the parents had not met the high burden of proving they were likely to win on their claim that the lack of an opt-out policy was coercing them to abandon part of their faith.

Judge Agee noted that while the parents had shown the books “could be used in ways that would confuse or mislead children,” the limited record in preliminary injunction hearings did not provide sufficient evidence of this occurring.

In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. argued that the parents had met their burden for a preliminary injunction. He wrote that the parents had shown the board’s decision “burdened these parents’ right to exercise their religion and direct the religious upbringing of their children by putting them to the choice of either compromising their religious beliefs or foregoing a public education for their children.”

As the case now heads to the Supreme Court, it highlights the ongoing tension between efforts to promote diversity and inclusion in schools and the religious rights of parents and children. The high court’s decision on whether to hear the case could have significant implications for how schools across the nation navigate these complex issues.

A Montgomery County school spokesman acknowledged awareness of the Supreme Court appeal but declined to comment on ongoing litigation. As the legal process unfolds, the case continues to draw attention to the delicate balance between educational inclusivity and religious freedom in public schools.