How SCOTUS decision on LGBTQ+ books in schools will affect Minnesota’s classrooms

NINA MOINI: The US Supreme Court has sided with parents who want to pull their children out of the classroom. When public schools use LGBTQ+-themed books and lessons. In recent years, there's been an uptick in parents asking school boards to ban books, especially ones that feature marginalized sexualities and genders.

Here to explain how the ruling could play out in Minnesota schools is Iman Hassan. She's the Advocacy Director at Gender Justice in Saint Paul and hosting a panel tonight about this ruling. Thank you so much for your time today, Iman.

IMAN HASSAN: Thank you so much. Hello, Nina. Thank you for having me on today to discuss Mahmoud v. Taylor.

And what a time to see such radical changes to legal jurisprudence. It's 10 years after the Supreme Court in Obergefell ruled that gay marriage was legal in the United States, that the Supreme Court ruled in Mahmoud v. Taylor last week that learning about LGBTQ+ people and families in a positive or affirming way in public school classrooms requires not just parental notification, but also parents have the right to opt out of their students and their children being exposed to any books that have these themes. So it says a lot about where we're at when we are creating supportive school systems.

NINA MOINI: There are implications all over for different cases, especially when they make it all the way to the Supreme Court. The case that you're talking about here, parents out of Maryland, who started the lawsuit against their school district, saying that the themes around LGBTQ+ in their school lessons violated their freedom of religion.

So can you tell me more about just how the Supreme Court found that their religious freedom was violated, how that was interpreted? And then, there were dissenting opinions, as well. What are you reading from those?

IMAN HASSAN: Correct. And this is, I mean, quite a change in legal jurisprudence. While some people would say this isn't a book ban. This isn't a big deal. This is just an opt out.

As many know, Minnesota has these opt outs. It does actually make a huge difference because in Mahmoud, the Supreme Court, one, granted a preliminary injunction to the parents overturning the decision in the Fourth Circuit. And in the 6-3 majority opinion written by Alito, he notes that the government burdens the parent's religious beliefs and that positive lessons on LGBTQ+ people pose, and, I quote, "a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices the parents wish to instill in their children."

And it's this language that makes this case so important. Because-- and if you read the dissent, Sotomayor really pinpoints the danger of the majority opinion changing Yoder, which is-- the majority opinion, essentially, uses Yoder, a Supreme Court case from 1972, as the foundation in the legal argument, to stating that books present the same kind of objective danger to the free exercise of religion, as were identified in Yoder.

And to anyone who doesn't know Yoder. Yoder was a case, and it's a fundamental case, in education law that essentially said that the government violates the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children whenever a government policy poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill. Here, though, in Yoder, the affirmative coercion was the State Compulsory School Attendance Law in Wisconsin, which didn't allow Amish families to take their children out of public education at the age of 16, and basically allowed them to really grow up in the Amish lifestyle and not participate in public education.

So that's very different. And this is why so many of us in the legal community think that the majority not just broadens, but misreads Yoder. Because what they're saying, the mere exposure of LGBTQ+-themed books that in an affirmative way talk about the family structures that are very real in our community and give a window into what types of diverse communities we live among and that we're part of, they think it's equivalent, as dangerous as parents potentially facing criminal legal liabilities, as in the case of Wisconsin, which compelled Amish families to send their children to public schools, or lose custody, or even worse, be criminally held liable for not upholding the responsibilities as parents.

So the fact that they're using Yoder in this mere exposure to affirmative and positive books, such as Princess and Knight and Love, Violet and Pride Puppy and Intersectional Allies, is a very, very radical change to legal jurisprudence from all the way in '72.

NINA MOINI: So taking it to the classroom and just everyday folks, I understand Gender Justice is hosting an information session tonight about this case. And I love the history, Yoder v. Wisconsin. Everything that you're giving us. What are you concerned about in the classroom for children that this could create, or would it create a different dynamic, or what concerns you about in the classroom?

IMAN HASSAN: Absolutely. So they have multiple concerns that were actually pinpointed both in the dissent and in the oral hearings. One, it takes a lot of work to provide notifications to parents and also to have opt-outs, where now classroom settings have to design and think through, especially in the younger age groups, how do we take a student out of a particular part of the curriculum, design something else for them? So the administrative costs will be great.

And i know that Minnesota was actually cited in the decision as a successful jurisdiction already implementing this. But unfortunately, we know when legal jurisprudence changes the way we think about opt-out, it has an impact on even jurisdictions that might not have to do it as much as they did.

It will have a chilling effect on how school districts use books that create affirmative and diverse look into literature for students to prepare themselves to become part of a civil community and become students that are prepared for the real world with diverse family structures.

We also are very nervous about the harm it will have. When we see students opt out, it creates, definitely, an internalization for students that are part of the community-- LGBTQ+ community. What does it say when you don't want to read Uncle Bobby's Wedding, but I have an uncle that has a partner that is same sex or I myself, for example?

If you're a student and you see people opting out of curriculum that reflects who you are at your core, it could lead to discriminatory school issues, both creating hostile learning environments because of normalizing this type of behavior. And also, what does it say allowing families to use their faith as a shield for homophobia? That's really at the core of this case.

While it isn't creating book bans, it is creating an environment that will be very chilling to speech and very chilling to school districts providing an actual window into our communities.

NINA MOINI: Imam, thank you so much for stopping by. And we're going to make sure that we have information about the event that you all are doing right now for the public as well, on our website. Thank you for stopping by.

IMAN HASSAN: I appreciate it. Thank you so much, Nina.

NINA MOINI: That was Imam Hassan, Advocacy Director at Gender Justice in Saint Paul. Again, learn more about their event at mprnews.org.