Today, April 22, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in a case brought by six parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, seeking to opt out their children from the presence of LGBTQ-inclusive books in public education.
“This case is about whether public school education can be a la carte, allowing parents to pick and choose and individually direct curriculums,” said Kelly Parry-Johnson, a senior staff attorney for Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE), a nonprofit that fights to protect transgender Americans’ legal and political rights. “This is at odds with the reality of – and our American and democratic values of – a pluralistic society and goals of public education.”
Mahmoud v. Taylor was brought to the Court by six parents objecting to LGBTQ-inclusive children’s picture books in Montgomery County Public Schools, which the district added after following district protocol as nonmandatory supplemental learning materials. The plaintiffs claim the books’ mere presence violates their freedom of religion, because they were not given the ability to opt their children out of the classroom with the books.
Perry-Johnson explains a broad opt-out provision “could lead to exclusion of books that depict the experiences of other marginalized people – whether based on race, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristics,” a consequence that eight Muslim groups raised in their amicus brief filed with the support of A4TE.
“In a country where Muslims and LGBTQI+ students alike are being targeted simply for being who they are, it is more important than ever that our taxpayer-funded public schools are learning environments that are safe and respectful of all students no matter who they are or what they believe,” said Gabriel Arkles, A4TE co-interim legal director.
Vox’s Ian Millhiser warned that a ruling in the parents’ favor could lead to “Don’t Say LGBTQ”-style restrictions in classrooms around the country. Such a verdict “would place such heavy obligations on teachers who discuss these topics that it is unclear whether they would practically be able to do so.”
The American Library Association (ALA) and the Banned Books Week Coalition (GLAAD is a contributor) recently announced the theme for Banned Books Week 2025, which will be held October 5 – 11: “Censorship Is So 1984. Read for Your Rights.” A nod to George Orwell’s frequently banned 1984, this year’s theme is appropriate on more than one level. Just this year:
- The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights squashed 11 book ban investigations, fired book ban coordinator Matt Nosanchuk, attempted to gaslight Americans into believing book bans are a “hoax,” and claimed that removing books restores “the fundamental rights of parents to direct their children’s education.”
- President Trump has targeted the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the sole “federal agency dedicated to funding library services.” Nearly all IMLS employees are on administrative leave, and funding that supports libraries, museums, and literary programs nationwide is in limbo.
- The U.S. Naval Academy, under the orders of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, purged 381 books from its library including classics like To Kill a Mockingbird because of its themes on race and racism. Army and Air Force libraries are also operating under similar orders.
The Trump administration’s efforts double down on the book ban trends. In 2024, the ALA documented “821 attempts to censor library books and other materials,” which the organization notes was “the third highest” recorded in its more than 30 years of tracking book censorship. PEN America noted more than 10,000 instances of book bans affecting over 4,000 unique titles during the 2023-24 school year.
Tasslyn Magnusson, senior advisor to PEN America’s Freedom to Read program, underlines the mental and emotional impact of cases like Mahmoud and the book ban epidemic.
“Books teach children about the world beyond themselves and encourage them to have their own thoughts and beliefs. Books empower children to make their own choices and engage in critical thinking,” Magnusson explained. “This is about making space for everyone; teaching students to understand how different people walk among the world and that not everyone’s experience is the same as their own.”
The authors of the books in the case released a joint statement in support of the school district: “All families deserve to be seen and heard. To act otherwise is harmful and sends a devastating message to students: that their lives and families are so offensive and dangerous that they can’t even be discussed in school.”
Authors Sarah and Ian Hoffman defended the books named in Mahmoud, including their book Jacob’s Room to Choose, saying they “teach self-acceptance and kindness.” Speaking in an op-ed in Time, the duo noted “that people have a fundamental right to practice and express their faith,” but not when it comes at the expense of others.
Sarah S. Brannen, whose children’s picture book Uncle Bobby’s Wedding was also included in the case, wrote in the Boston Globe that she penned the story “for all of those children with LGBTQ families.” She also expressed concern that the justices read the nine books – sharing art she created showing the justices reading them.
Brannen said that books like hers “don’t seek to change their readers into something they are not. If books could do that, I would have grown up as a caterpillar and become a butterfly.”
Texas-based student activist and organizer against book bans Da’Taeveyon Daniels admitted he had difficulty finding positive representation in books and elsewhere: “Growing up as a young queer Black youth in a conservative Southern state often felt lonely and isolating.” Daniels, who was selected as Banned Books Week’s 2023 Youth Honorary Chair and as one of GLAAD’s “20 Under 20” young LGBTQ activists in 2024 for his student advocacy efforts championing intellectual freedom, said his efforts are “about empowerment and creating a space for others who come from similar marginalized backgrounds.”
“Many opponents of LGBTQ-inclusive books have never read these books and have no understanding of the content,” said Daniels. “But for young people, these books give us a better understanding not only about ourselves, but just as importantly, an understanding of our peers and people NOT like ourselves. That is something worth fighting for.”
