Supreme Court leftists take their fear of parents’ faith ‘to a ludicrous level’

Leftists on the U.S. Supreme Court are taking their fear of parents who teach children their own religious faith “to a ludicrous level,” according to commentary following last week’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor.

In that case, the 6-3 majority simply said that schools are not allowed to force their own religious beliefs onto young children, through mandatory lessons and a ban on opt-outs, because that infringes on the religious rights of the parents.

The case came out of Montgomery County, Maryland, where school officials adopted that mandatory LGBT indoctrination for children as young as three years old. Originally, schools offered an opt-out for parents who didn’t want the school’s religious ideologies taught to their children, but the school district, faced with a flood of such demands from parents, soon decided to force all children into the lessons.

A commentary at Federalist notes what the dissenters, Sonio Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Jackson, who famously established her place in history by telling her Senate confirmation hearing she was unable to define “woman,” hypothesized.

“The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, sided with the parents, saying, ‘A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill … And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.'”

But, the commentary noted, “That is not how the three leftists see it. In fact, they see parents — especially religious ones — as roadblocks to education.”

Sotomayor wrote that schools offer children of all faiths and backgrounds an education “to practice living in our multicultural society.”

“That experience is critical to our nation’s civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs,” she claimed.

The Federalist explained, “Sotomayor spins this irrational fear to a ludicrous level, imaging a world where religious parents will object to every imaginable lesson, opting their kids out of this and that, until the only option is for schools to teach what parents want their kids to learn.”

SCOTUS on June 27 ruled in favour of parents in Maryland who sued to keep their elementary school children out of certain classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read in a high-profile case involving the intersection of religion and LGBT rights https://t.co/tQ0TItrdtV pic.twitter.com/JwSNG3fqH5

— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) June 28, 2025

Supreme Court sides with parents who want to opt kids out of LGBT school books https://t.co/tUqALV59Ss

— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) June 28, 2025

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley also expressed concern about the extremism of Sotomayor.

It was her comments that were “the most striking in its apocalyptic take on allowing parents to remove their children from these classes. Despite the fact that various opt-outs have been allowed for parents, this one is deemed a threat to the very essence of public education.”

He noted the aggressively anti-Christian school agenda: “The children are required to read or listen to stories like ‘Prince & Knight’ about two male knights who marry each other, and ‘Love Violet’ about two young girls falling in love. Another, ‘Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,’ discusses a biological girl who begins a transition to being a boy. Teachers were informed that this was mandatory reading, which must be assigned, and that families would not be allowed to opt out. The guidelines for teachers made clear that students had to be corrected if they expressed errant or opposing views of gender. If a child questions how someone born a boy could become a girl, teachers were encouraged to correct the child and declare, ‘That comment is hurtful!'”

He said, “Teachers were specifically told to ‘[d]isrupt’ thinking or values opposing transgender views.”

TS the fight over the opt-outs developed.

But he said the “most overwrought” reaction was from the three extremists on the bench.

“There ‘will be chaos for this nation’s public schools’ and both education and children will ‘suffer’ if parents are allowed to opt their children out of these lessons,” he noted the leftists claimed.

“She also worried about the ‘chilling effect’ of the ruling, which would make schools more hesitant to offer such classes in the future.”

The trio demanded that “the damage to America’s public education system will be profound” and the decision supporting parents’ constitutional rights “threatens the very essence of public education.”

He noted the attitude was simply reflecting what other officials have claimed:

“State Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Wis.) once insisted: ‘If parents want to ‘have a say’ in their child’s education, they should homeschool or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.’ Iowa school board member Rachel Wall said: ‘The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.'”

The effect of the ideology is evident, he said.

“Our public schools are imploding. Some are lowering standards to achieve ‘equity’ and graduating students without proficiency skills. Families are objecting to the priority given to political and social agendas to make their kids better people when they lack math, science, and other skills needed to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace. … Schools are facing rising debt and severe declines in enrollment, yet unions in states like Illinois are demanding even more staff increases and larger expenditures.”