688 F.Supp.3d 265
D. Md.2023Background
- MCPS added a set of LGBTQ-inclusive picture/storybooks into its elementary English Language Arts curriculum to increase representation and inclusivity.
- Previously MCPS allowed parents to opt their children out of specific classroom readings; in March 2023 the Board adopted a policy ending advance notice and opt-outs for these inclusive texts (except opt-outs statutorily required for the separate family life/human sexuality unit).
- Three families (and later the parent group Kids First) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging violations of the Free Exercise Clause, free speech, substantive due process (parental-rights), and Maryland opt-out rules; they sought a preliminary injunction requiring notice and opt-outs.
- Plaintiffs contend the books and classroom discussion coerce children and interfere with parents’ religious duty to raise children according to their faiths; the Board defended the no-opt-out policy as necessary to avoid classroom disruption, student stigmatization, and to further inclusion and nondiscrimination.
- The court held a hearing and denied the preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise and substantive due process claims and concluding plaintiffs had not shown coercion or indoctrination likely to occur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the no-opt-out policy burdens religious exercise | No opt-outs force children to be exposed to and pressured by materials that undermine parents’ religious upbringing duties (coercion/indoctrination) | Exposure to ideas does not coerce; policy is neutral and applies to all students and thus does not burden free exercise | Court: No likely burden; plaintiffs failed to show coercion or likely indoctrination, so Free Exercise claim unlikely to succeed |
| If there is a burden, whether strict scrutiny applies | Yoder/hybrid-rights or Fulton doctrines require strict scrutiny because parental rights + religion are implicated and prior guidelines allowed exemptions | Policy is generally applicable (applies to all) and motivated by neutral administrative and nondiscrimination concerns; rational-basis review applies | Court: Need not reach neutrality; because no burden shown, strict scrutiny not triggered; rational basis would sustain policy if reached |
| Whether parents have a fundamental substantive due process right to opt kids out of curriculum | Parents assert a fundamental right to direct religious upbringing that requires strict scrutiny when public schooling conflicts with beliefs | Board says parental right does not permit substituting private religious curriculum in public schools; regulation of curriculum is subject to rational basis | Court: Parental right not shown to be a fundamental right here; Herndon and precedent point to rational-basis review; due process claim unlikely to succeed |
| Whether preliminary injunctive relief (including stay pending appeal) is warranted | Plaintiffs seek immediate reinstatement of notice/opt-outs to avoid irreparable religious harm | Board opposes; argues plaintiffs fail high preliminary-injunction standard | Court: Denied preliminary injunction and injunction pending appeal because plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success or imminent irreparable constitutional harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (Amish parents’ education claim was sui generis and justified strict scrutiny where compulsory schooling threatened religious way of life)
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021) (policies that allow individualized exemptions may not be generally applicable)
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws receive rational-basis review)
- Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education, 827 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1987) (mere exposure to objectionable curricular ideas does not constitute a Free Exercise burden)
- Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (parental Free Exercise/opt-out claims fail absent coercion or indoctrination)
- Fleischfresser v. Directors of School District 200, 15 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 1994) (no coercive effect from curricular exposure; parents remain free to instruct at home)
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (denial of benefits that force doctrinal choice burdens Free Exercise)
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439 (1988) (incidental effects on religion do not automatically trigger strict scrutiny absent coercion)
- Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986) (Free Exercise does not require government to conform its internal procedures to individual religious beliefs)
- Herndon v. Chapel Hill–Carrboro Bd. of Educ., 89 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 1996) (parental due-process interest in directing education exists but is subject to reasonable regulation and rational-basis review absent strong religious elements)