On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Mahmoud v. Taylor — a case that marks not only a major step in the fight for parental rights, but also in protecting young children from LGBT-themed, sexually explicit material. Several justices appeared to lean toward the parents, signaling support for their claims.

The lawsuit emerged when Maryland parents, backed by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, decided to challenge Montgomery County Public Schools’ (MCPS) elementary story hours that promoted books on Pride parades, gender transitions, and LGBT themes. Determined to protect their children, these parents are demanding the right to opt out on religious grounds — a freedom the school district denies.

In Tuesday’s arguments, MCPS attorney Alan Schoenfeld defended the district’s decision to eliminate the opt-out policy, claiming it became “infeasible.” He argued that “every day in public elementary school classrooms, children are taught ideas that conflict with their family’s religious beliefs,” but insisted “MCPS makes explicitly clear that students do not need to accept, agree with or affirm anything they read or anything about their classmates’ beliefs or lives,” downplaying the impact on parents’ religious objections.

Chief Justice John Roberts sharply questioned Schoenfeld’s defense. “[Y]ou said that nothing in the policy requires students to affirm what’s being taught or what’s being presented in the books,” Roberts challenged. “Is that a realistic concept when you’re talking about a five-year-old?” His skepticism underscored the core issue dominating Tuesday’s hearing: the murky line between “exposure” and “coercion” in exposing young children to controversial ideas.

Liberal justices aligned with the school district. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, citing a lower court’s ruling, argued that the books were “mere exposure,” not coercion, as the books were simply placed on shelves. In contrast, Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed harder, pointing to MCPS’s guidance for teachers to respond to a student saying, “A boy can’t be a girl because he was born a boy,” with: “That comment is hurtful, and we shouldn’t use negative words to talk about people’s identities.” Gorsuch probed, “Is that just exposure, or is that something else for a three to five-year-old? … Is that exposure, or is that coercion in your world?”

Under pressure, Schoenfeld admitted coercion could occur, conceding: “I think that the line that we advocate between exposure and coercion is the relevant one. And there may be circumstances where, given the age of the student or given the particular presentation of information in the classroom, a plaintiff may be able to make out a case that their child is being coerced” — this admission only further highlighting the case’s stakes for parental rights and religious freedom.

Justice Samuel Alito intensified the scrutiny, highlighting that books like “Love, Violet,” which depicts “a same-sex playground romance” for kindergarten through fifth grade students, go beyond neutral information. “I don’t think anybody can read that and say, ‘Well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” Alito stated. “It has a clear moral message” — one he noted “a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Pressing further, he questioned, “What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed this, expressing disbelief at MCPS’s decision to eliminate the opt-out policy. “Maryland was founded on religious liberty and religious tolerance, a haven for Catholics escaping persecution from persecution in England going back to 1649,” Kavanaugh told Schoenfeld. “I guess I’m surprised, given that this is the hill we’re going to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty.”

Outside the courtroom, commentators weighed in on the case’s implications. Meg Kilgannon, Family Research Council’s senior fellow for Education Studies, reflected on the oral arguments with FRC President Tony Perkins on Tuesday’s “Washington Watch.” Kilgannon found the hearing “really encouraging,” observing that “the overall mood of the case and the mood of the justices seemed … to be in the favor of the parents. I was very glad to hear that.”

She pointedly noted how the justices pressed MCPS to justify denying opt-outs for storybooks while allowing them elsewhere. In fact, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, too, underscored this inconsistency. She stated that the district permits opt-outs for religious objections to musical performances, dissections, high school sex ed, and “virtually everything else under the sun,” yet “one thing they don’t allow is the exemptions for the storybooks.” As Kilgannon emphasized, the justices “were really asking the school system to defend” this double standard, and they didn’t “seem to be buying Montgomery County’s arguments.”

Ultimately, both Perkins and Kilgannon agreed that, as the Supreme Court deliberates, Mahmoud v. Taylor could establish a landmark precedent, safeguarding parental rights and religious liberty nationwide against ideological overreach in schools.