The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a high-profile case involving parents in Maryland challenging their public school district over its refusal to allow students to opt out of LGBTQ-themed books in the classroom.
As reported by The Blaze, during the session, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson drew widespread criticism for remarks suggesting parents should remove their children from public schools if they disagree with the curriculum.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who argue that the school district violated their religious rights by denying requests to excuse their children from classroom exposure to materials that conflict with their beliefs.
Trump’s Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?
The parents, who include both Muslim and Orthodox Christian families, contend that the district’s mandatory inclusion of books featuring transgender and gay characters amounts to compelled instruction against their faith.
Attorneys for the parents described the materials as “instruction designed to indoctrinate petitioners’ children against their religious beliefs” and requested a limited opt-out provision. The school district has refused, arguing that the books support diversity and inclusion.
Justice Jackson questioned whether the curriculum burdens the religious rights of families, suggesting an alternative solution.
“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.”
Ketanji Brown Jackson: “I guess I’m struggling to see how it burdens a parent’s religious exercise if the school teaches something the parent disagrees with. You have a choice! You don’t have to send your kid to that school!” pic.twitter.com/6sfTotlOeY
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) April 23, 2025
This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year
Her comments sparked swift backlash online.
One social media user responded:
“You’re forced through your tax dollars to fund education you fundamentally disagree with for everyone else’s children and now incur the costs of educating your children on top of that instead of being granted a quite simple accommodation. Wow. Just wow.”
Another post read, “I shouldn’t have to invoke a religious exemption for simply wanting to protect my child’s innocence while they’re still in preschool or grade school.”
Image Credit: Monkey Business Images – Shutterstock.com
Others questioned the financial implications of Jackson’s logic.
“I’m sure she did NOT mean for the parents to put their kids in ‘another situation’ and stop paying their school taxes.”
During the hearing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett also weighed in, highlighting the distinction between acknowledging LGBTQ people and promoting certain viewpoints.
“It’s not just exposure to the idea, right?” Barrett said. “It’s saying this is the right view of the world. This is how we think about things. This is how you should think about things. This is like 2 plus 2 is 4.”
Observers indicated that several justices appeared sympathetic to the parents’ position, suggesting the court may rule in favor of opt-out rights. A decision is expected by the end of June.
Connect with Vetted Off-Duty Cops to Instantly Fulfill Your Security Needs
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.
Read the full article here
