On Tuesday, April 22, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Mahmoud, et. al. v. Taylor, et. al., a case about public school parents’ right to have their children “opt out” of certain curriculum that does not comport with the parents’ religious beliefs. Legal experts note that the case could have important implications for yeshivos and other nonpublic schools as well.
The Mahmoud case was filed by parents of public school students in Montgomery County, Washington, D. C. who objected to the inclusion of books and other materials that contained morally objectionable themes in the curriculum of their children’s schools. The District Court and United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit declined to allow the objecting parents the right to be notified in advance regarding the objectionable materials so that their children could opt out of participating in class when those materials were being taught. Despite these setbacks, the parents pressed on, and the Supreme Court agreed to take their case.
Agudath Israel of America, along with other religious advocacy groups, filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court rulings disregard a long line of caselaw that gives parents the right to direct the upbringing – and particularly the educational upbringing — of their children.
Moreover, amici argued that the lower courts’ determination that the government is permitted to utilize its resources — in this case, the public school system — without regard to parents’ religious concerns, is contrary to recent Supreme Court decisions that require sensitivity to the Free Exercise Clause and generally prohibit government resources from being withheld from sectarian institutions.
“This case is not just about public schools,” said Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Executive Vice President of Agudath Israel of America. “In light of the ongoing efforts in certain jurisdictions to dictate what must be learned in yeshivos and other nonpublic schools, and by whom it must be taught, there is a lot riding on the outcome of this case. We look forward to a reaffirmation by the nation’s highest court that parents are the ultimate decision-makers when it comes to their children’s education.”
Agudath Israel’s general counsel, Daniel I. Kaminetsky, Esq., added: “Agudath Israel has always been vigilant to protect the rights of all individuals to freely exercise their religion. The government’s position in the Mahmoud case is yet another attempt to erode the religious rights guaranteed by our Constitution. That erosion must be stopped.”
Agudath Israel thanks Steven T. McFarland and Laura Nammo of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom, the Christian Legal Society and Eric Treene and Roman P. Storzer of Storzer and Associates, for their leading role in drafting the amicus brief.
{Matzav.com}