Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown – joined by a coalition of 18 other U.S. Attorneys General – filed an amicus brief on Tuesday in support of Montgomery County Board of Education’s decision to incorporate inclusive story books into elementary English language arts curriculum and its policy of not allowing parents to opt-out their student of instruction.
The brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and says the school district’s policy does not violate the Constitution or Maryland law and emphasizes the Attorneys General support for “safety and inclusion for LGBTQ+ youth in schools.”
“Our schools play a fundamental role in shaping the minds and hearts of the next generation, and it’s our duty to ensure that every child feels safe, supported, and valued,” Brown said in a press release. “Educational policies that promote respect for LGBTQ+ people will help build a more equitable future for all children.”
An amicus curiae brief is a legal filing submitted by a person or group intended to influence the court’s decision. The people or groups that write and submit an amicus brief are not directly involved in the legal case.
The filing comes on the heels of a handful of other filings of amicus briefs in the Fourth Circuit Court in support of the board’s no opt-out policy. Some came from the National Education Association and the Maryland State Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, Lambda Legal, PFLAG and Metro D.C. PFLAG.
The coalition’s brief was co-led by Brown and the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Andrea Campbell. They were joined by the Attorneys General of California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington in filing.
The amicus brief argues that:
- The board’s efforts do not burden religious freedom or violate Maryland law
“In integrating LGBTQ+-inclusive books into its language arts curriculum, Montgomery County is not engaging in religious coercion,” the brief states. “Students are not required to undertake or refrain from any religious practice. Nor are they (or their parents) required to affirm or profess adherence to any view. … And the County does nothing to prevent parents from conveying whatever messages they want to their children—including, for instance, messages that particular relationships or family structures contravene their religious beliefs.”
- All students benefit from supportive and inclusive school environments
“Students who are able to read ‘mirroring’ literature at school tend to become better readers and achieve higher proficiency across all school subjects; conversely, when ‘mirror’ literature is lacking, students who do not see themselves may feel a diminished sense of belonging and connectedness in their school community and may see their academic outcomes suffer as a result. The board has an interest in making schools safe, supportive, and inclusive for all students and LGBTQ+ youth,” the brief states.
- LGBTQ+ youth face unique struggles that are addressed through a supportive and inclusive school environment, including curricula that incorporate LGBTQ-inclusive books
“In one 2022 study, 68% of LGBTQ+ students reported feeling unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and close to 90% reported hearing homophobic language used by their peers,” the brief states. “According to a 2023 mental health survey, 60% of LGBTQ+ youth respondents reported being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
- The Montgomery County Board of Education’s use of the books it has chosen fosters tolerance and prepares children for a diverse world
“Public schools thus lie at the heart of states’ obligation to provide people with the skills they need as citizens, as well as states’ opportunity to contribute to the orderly functioning of a democratic society.”
In August, a federal judge denied a motion for injunction that aimed to temporarily force MCPS to rescind its no-opt-out policy for LGBTQ+ inclusive reading materials for elementary students. The lawsuit stems from controversy over the school district’s decision to not allow parents to remove their students from the classroom (or, opt-out) when a book with LGBTQ+ themes and character are utilized in class.
The no-opt-out policy was first articulated by MCPS in March after the district added six new LGBTQ+ inclusive books to its supplemental curriculum for pre-K through fifth grade. MCPS revised its policy on the use of the inclusive books in schools which said that teachers will not notify or send a letter home to families when inclusive books are read in the classroom.
In May three MCPS families filed a lawsuit, Mahmoud v. McKnight, against the school board and superintendent alleging that the no-opt-out policy violates their constitutional right to religious expression and Maryland law. After filing the suit, Muslim, Orthodox and Christian families in the county protested the decision outside school board headquarters and have continuously presented testimony at school board meetings urging the school district to offer an opt-out accommodation.
Other parents, students and officials have expressed their support for MCPS’ approach to its inclusive curriculum. A petition of support for the policy garnered more than 3,000 signatures as of Aug. 1 from county residents, parents and faith leaders.
MCPS issued its own statement on the ruling after the injunction was denied which said, “public schools are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student violate his or her faith during classroom instruction.”
The statements read: “MCPS remains committed to cultivating an inclusive and welcoming learning environment and creating opportunities where all students see themselves and their families in curriculum materials.”
In October, an oral argument for the case was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Dec. 5 in Richmond, Virginia, at the Lewis F. Powell Jr. United States Courthouse, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to court filings.
