This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 2022, D “determined that the books used in its existing [English & Language Arts] curriculum were not representative of many students and families in Montgomery County because they did not include LGBTQ characters.” During the 2022-2023 school year, D introduced a variety of “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts into the public school curriculum. These included five “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks approved for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, which have story lines focused on sexuality and gender. Most Montgomery County residents with school-age children, by choice or necessity, send them to public school. Maryland law requires that resident children ages 5 to 18 “attend a public school regularly during the entire school year.” The State permits parents to send their children to private school or to educate them at home if certain requirements can be met. D enrolls 160,554 students in its 210 schools and has an operating budget of nearly $3 billion. D’s “Guidelines for Respecting Religious Diversity” profess a commitment to making “reasonable accommodations” for the religious “beliefs and practices” of its students. At issue in this lawsuit are the five “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks that are approved for students in Kindergarten through fifth grade-in other words, for children who are generally between 5 and 11 years old. D suggested “that teachers incorporate the new texts into the curriculum in the same way that other books are used by putting them on a shelf for students to find on their own; to recommend a book to a student who would enjoy it; to offer the books as an option for literature circles, book clubs, or paired reading groups; or to use them as a read aloud.” “Teachers cannot . . . elect not to use the LGBTQ-Inclusive Books at all.” D also contemplated that instruction involving the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks would include classroom discussion. D trained its teachers to answer with canned, prescripted answers to questions from their students. Teachers were also trained to assure parents that there would not be “explicit instruction” about gender and sexual identity, but that “there may be a need to define words that are new and unfamiliar to students,” and that “questions and conversations might organically happen.” “Parents were allowed to keep their children home while using the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts; however, it will not be an excused absence.” Ps “began contacting individual teachers, principals, or MCPS staff ” about the storybooks and asking that their children be excused from classroom instruction. Ps claimed “educators and administrators are going behind what [parents] are teaching their kids at home, and pushing ideas of gender ideology on their kids.” D notified Ps when the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks would be taught, and permitted their children to be excused from instruction involving the books. In March 2023, D issued a statement declaring that “students and families may not choose to opt out of engaging” with the storybooks and that “teachers will not send home letters to inform families when inclusive books are read in the future.” D claimed “individual principals and teachers could not accommodate the growing number of opt-out requests without causing significant disruptions to the classroom environment.” D claimed that permitting some students to exit the classroom while the storybooks were being taught would expose other students “to social stigma and isolation.” More than 1,000 parents signed a petition asking the Board to restore opt-out rights. Hundreds of displeased parents appeared at D’s public meetings and implored D to allow opt-outs. Ps were extremely upset that the teaching conflicted with their religious beliefs. D’s attitude was simply, if you don’t like it, go to a private school or be homeschooled. One board member said, “‘white supremacists’” who want to prevent their children from learning about civil rights and “‘xenophobes’” who object to “‘stories about immigrant families.’” D continues to permit children to opt out of other school activities, including the “family life and human sexuality” unit of instruction, for which opt-outs are required under Maryland law. Ps filed this suit. They asserted that D’s no-opt-out policy infringed their right to the free exercise of their religion. They sought a preliminary and permanent injunction. The court characterized Ps’ primary argument as an objection to school “indoctrination” and asserted that Ps had not “identified any case recognizing a free exercise violation based on indoctrination.” The Fourth Circuit affirmed. It held that Ps could succeed on their free exercise claim only if they could “show direct or indirect coercion arising out of the exposure” to the storybooks. The dissent concluded that D had “forced Ps to make a choice-either adhere to their faith or receive a free public education for their children.” Forcing parents to make such a choice was a burden on their religious exercise. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.