[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6231130,"mediaKeyId","3439010-ef52ea8c93ef93163db4c1afa6937a30","parentId",3439010,"title","Supreme Court considers parents’ challenge to Montgomery County opt‑out removal for LGBTQ‑inclusive children’s books","audioSeconds",901,"startMs",2599000,"endMs",3500000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3439010-ef52ea8c93ef93163db4c1afa6937a30&start=2599&end=3500","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3439010-ef52ea8c93ef93163db4c1afa6937a30/thumbnail_2599000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6231130/Vermont/Supreme-Court-considers-parents-challenge-to-Montgomery-County-optout-removal-for-LGBTQinclusive-childrens-books","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6231130-26f006c737e26deeb4027d40f01ecec5/orig.mp4?Expires=1773577856&Signature=XCn7xqUHR0elpB8t9P6zxdSdrzK21plpXN3L579ZkiS9dHIPA9ql6lW3VQRER2HXyQxJFIWsjyjhj26JrhqEW1f9bkWsZrEMAtboooeR605ul9IJgkometcMAu9ydAL8dK4Bwqu~BQvFGeLXMyt4Wd~WfU8rc8VsJ5CnRuCOlYS4oFhDoVupLVioJ8f~h6aZ2iMehiEcxuk3gh3~F0TEDbhyIviEakha-fBVMcjV15Ja3L2k76syt1vsWyVSy0YKwBe7vniaY0PL75cyXIO7A~tPFdJmYbtrron3WR6bteS~p-v5RmwqQLTMd9ucUMzZl3-gN5u7A28HzjAUkyKHyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-22T03:50:54.77Z","article","Legislative counsel Bethany Champs briefed the House Education Committee on May 20 about Mahmood v. Taylor, a case in which parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, sued after the county school board removed a previously available opt‑out for a set of LGBTQ‑inclusive children’s books used in early elementary classrooms.

Champs, legislative counsel in the Office of Legislative Council, told the committee the books were adopted through ordinary curriculum processes and were described by the Fourth Circuit as “storybooks” used to teach basic reading concepts. Initially the district allowed year‑to‑year opt‑outs; the board later removed the opt‑out option and several parents sought a preliminary injunction to restore it while litigation proceeded.

Why it matters: the dispute frames how the Free Exercise Clause applies to public school curricula and whether the absence of an opt‑out imposes a cognizable burden on religious exercise for parents and children. The Fourth Circuit denied a preliminary injunction for lack of a developed record showing coercion; the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard argument April 22.

Champs summarized the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning: courts assessing free‑exercise claims must determine whether government action coerces a violation of religious beliefs. The Fourth Circuit found the record “devoid of any information” showing how frequently teachers used the books, how they were used in specific classrooms, or whether any child had been compelled to act or believe contrary to religious tenets. \"The record was not developed enough to show that the age of the students alone would amount to coercion,\" she said, summarizing the opinion.

The parents framed their request narrowly, Champs said: they sought only an opt‑out from classroom instruction using the storybooks and argued the removal of opt‑outs coerced children and families in violation of their free‑exercise rights. The Fourth Circuit concluded plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because they had not demonstrated a cognizable burden; the court therefore denied the preliminary injunction.

Champs noted the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion could be limited to the preliminary injunction question or signal broader changes in free‑exercise doctrine. She said commentary suggests the conservative majority might be sympathetic to the parents’ claims, but the magnitude of any ruling — whether narrow or sweeping — is uncertain.

Committee members asked about practical classroom implications, whether teachers would need to develop alternative lessons for opt‑out students and how broad a ruling might affect other curriculum decisions; Champs reiterated that the Fourth Circuit’s decision rested on the limited record presented at the preliminary‑injunction stage and that many factual details (how teachers actually used individual books in classrooms) were not in the record.

The case raises questions about how courts will treat claims that exposure to ideas in the classroom — absent evidence of compulsion — imposes a constitutional burden. The Supreme Court’s decision could affect opt‑out practices around the country depending on how broadly the justices rule; Champs said the committee’s counsel office will provide deeper analysis after an opinion is issued.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Education - 2025-05-21 - 9:35 AM","oneSentenceSummary","A dispute over whether parents can be denied an opt‑out from classroom use of LGBTQ‑inclusive storybooks in Montgomery County public schools is before the U.S. Supreme Court after the Fourth Circuit denied a preliminary injunction; oral argument was heard April 22.","taxTitle","Education, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30651,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6231135,"Oklahoma case over religious virtual charter St. Isidore heads to U.S. Supreme Court after state high court orders rescission",1644,253000,1897000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3439010-ef52ea8c93ef93163db4c1afa6937a30&start=253&end=1897","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3439010-ef52ea8c93ef93163db4c1afa6937a30/thumbnail_253000.jpg","/articles/6231135/Vermont/Oklahoma-case-over-religious-virtual-charter-St-Isidore-heads-to-US-Supreme-Court-after-state-high-court-orders-rescission","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6231135-c5b636ba4ea8bd370853c6b7ee9dc5a5/orig.mp4?Expires=1773577856&Signature=J08ScBjzIKxIy3UARkz6nfzBgjBXwQh3gsiWc3bCIsjjae5uOw1K38DqH8YTaSJiwm65OH~RbLmebhowbsz3DrzfiqT6qAdeIM6bcONQ3BYjTgYmvgk7SZz44qTKZiYwsPvxv~7gCBp90bkqwA8V9buT4EBjKaL-~0i03sVpDdfoZrXTGVzt8u-F5WKiD~hXoe7SzI2JR9tplS82tzrm8ZAy8R0DqgWPzG6R14knzNtTKc8CkWB3ZRPtIFIeP4e6UGPH8j2LE5yIgmgYSo7-3kWuD8j5QhduOqNJdRJtorGRy7i~bgYfXHvudCJUrmlVfLz60SvjkGFQDqTzMaZ9~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legislative counsel Bethany Champs told the Vermont House Education Committee on May 20 that the dispute over St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — a proposed state‑sponsored religious virtual charter in Oklahoma — is now before the U.S. Supreme Court after the Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered the charter contract rescinded.

Champs, legislative counsel in the Office of Legislative Council, said the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa applied to the Oklahoma Charter School Board to create St. Isidore and that the board voted 3‑2 in October 2023 to approve a sponsorship contract that included modified language allowing the school “the right to freely exercise its religious beliefs and practices consistent with its religious protections.”

Why it matters: the Oklahoma Supreme Court concluded that the contract and state funding to operate St. Isidore would amount to state support of a religious institution in violation of the Oklahoma Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court; oral argument was held April 30, and a decision from the high court is widely expected in late June.

Champs summarized key factual and legal points the committee discussed: Oklahoma law treats charter schools as public schools but, she said, states differ on how much of the law applies to charter operators. The Archdiocese and Diocese framed St. Isidore’s mission in their application as “Rooted in the Catholic understanding of the human person and her or his relationship with God and neighbor, St. Isidore fully embraces the teachings of the Catholic Church’s Magisterium,” language Champs read from the application.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that St. Isidore was sufficiently entwined with the state to be a state actor and therefore could not receive state funding to operate a school whose curriculum and daily life “fully incorporate Catholic teachings,” Champs said she read from the opinion. The court concluded that allowing state funding for that kind of religious schooling would violate the state constitution’s ban on using public funds for sectarian institutions and the federal Establishment Clause.

Champs walked the committee through the competing First Amendment theories at issue. She said the school and the Charter Board argue that, under the free exercise line of cases that includes Trinity Lutheran, Espinosa and the more recent Carson decision, the state cannot exclude religiously affiliated schools from publicly funded programs solely because they are religious. The Oklahoma Supreme Court, she said, distinguished those precedents on their facts and found that here the Establishment Clause concerns outweighed the free‑exercise claim.

Champs also noted procedural points raised in the litigation: the Charter Board modified its model contract for St. Isidore to include the religious‑exercise language; the Oklahoma attorney general sought a writ of mandamus asking the board to rescind the contract; and the state high court ordered rescission. If the U.S. Supreme Court is evenly divided -- Justice Amy Coney Barrett sat out the case, Champs said -- the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision would stand.

Committee members asked for clarifications about how the case differs from Carson and related precedents and whether the Oklahoma constitutional provision reflected older “Blaine Amendment” language; Champs said she had not delved into the full historical record and offered to follow up.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming opinion could be narrow and limited to Oklahoma’s facts or carry broader national implications for charter laws and state contracts, Champs warned; she emphasized that the ultimate holdings will depend on how the justices frame the state‑actor question and the balance between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

For now, the case’s status is: Oklahoma’s high court ordered rescission; that ruling was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard argument April 30. A final opinion from the high court is expected in late June and could affect other states depending on its scope.","The Oklahoma Supreme Court found that a state-sponsored virtual Catholic charter school contract violated both the Oklahoma Constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause; the state appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument April 30.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Supreme Court considers parents’ challenge to Montgomery County opt‑out removal for LGBTQ‑inclusive children’s books

Oklahoma case over religious virtual charter St. Isidore heads to U.S. Supreme Court after state high court orders rescission