In Mahmoud v. McKnight, (4th Cir., Maay 15, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed a Maryland federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a challenge to a school board's refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of exposure to a group of LGBTQ inclusive books. The parents contended that refusal to provide an opt out alternative violates their religious free exercise rights. The majority said in part:
As an initial matter, there’s no evidence at present that the Board’s decision not to permit opt-outs compels the Parents or their children to change their religious beliefs or conduct, either at school or elsewhere....
The Parents do not really take issue with the foregoing conclusion; instead, they argue that the Board’s decision nonetheless coerces religious exercise by compelling them to expose their children to views that are at odds with their religious faith....
Supreme Court precedent requires some sort of direct or indirect pressure to abandon religious beliefs or affirmatively act contrary to those beliefs....
We understand the Parents’ contention that the Storybooks could be used in ways that would confuse or mislead children and, in particular, that discussions relating to their contents could be used to indoctrinate their children into espousing views that are contrary to their religious faith. But none of that is verified by the limited record that is before us....
Put simply, we cannot conclude that a policy requiring the presence of an individual in the classroom when these materials may be read ipso facto creates an impermissibly coercive environment....
Judge Quattlebaum dissented, saying in part:
... [W]hen the onion layers of the board’s argument are peeled back, the board seems to question the relative importance of the parents’ religious beliefs that their children should not be taught with the books the board required be used to promote diversity and inclusivity to the LGBTQ+ community. To explain, the board only denied opt-outs for instruction involving those books. So, despite disclaiming that it is doing so, the board’s arguments, which the district court adopted, really view the parents’ religious objections to the texts as less important than the board’s goals to improve inclusivity for the LGBTQ+ community. But this is the precisely the sort of value judgment about parents’ religious claims that courts must not make....
Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.
