SCOTUS may 'come to regret' this 'half-baked decision' — here’s why: analysis

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 6-3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor on June 27, right-wing media outlets were quick to hail it as a victory for religious freedom.

The High Court's GOP-appointed supermajority ruled that in Montgomery County, Maryland religious parents could opt out of pro-gay books used in public schools. Critics, however, say the ruling goes too far.

Salon's Amanda Marcotte, in an article published on July 2, argues that the ruling encourages more Republican book bans in public schools.

READ MORE: Bombshell SCOTUS ruling makes it 'much harder' for courts to challenge Trump: legal experts

The majority opinion in Mahmoud was written by far-right Justice Samuel Alito, and all three of the dissenters were Democratic appointees: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

"The case involved a school district in Virginia, where right-wing parents were abusing the 'opt-out' system meant to allow parents limited ability to take kids out of class for lessons that conflicted with the parents' religious beliefs," Marcotte explains. "The school had recently added some picture books to the list approved for classroom use that featured LGBTQ characters, mostly for storytelling hours in elementary schools. Under a deluge of propaganda falsely portraying these books as sexual — which they most definitely were not — masses of parents demanded broad 'opt-out' rights of any lesson involving the books."

Marcotte continues, "The opt-outs spun out of control, threatening to make reading hour impossible, so the school tried to restrict the policy. But the Supreme Court's conservative majority forced the school to retain broad 'opt-out' rights for parents. Alito, who is as intellectually dishonest as he is self-pitying, tried to pretend the decision was a 'compromise.'"

Marcotte points out, however, that "mischief can cut in multiple directions" and cites a controversy in Oklahoma as an example.

READ MORE: 'They need to stop': How 'unforced errors' from liberal advocates help a 'hostile court'

"As Judd Legum of Popular Information reported last month, progressives in the state are using a broad 'opt-out' provision to fight back against efforts to use public schools to push right-wing propaganda on students," Marcotte observes. "The Donald Trump-worshipping state superintendent, Ryan Walters, has imposed a social studies curriculum teaching outright lies, such as 'discrepancies' in the 2020 election and that the U.S. was founded as a 'Christian' nation."

The Salon journalist continues, "The state also passed a law in 2024 giving any parent the right to withdraw a child from any lesson they deem 'harmful.' The legislation was intended to give right-wing parents the ability to disrupt lessons in science, history or other subjects that make Christian nationalists grumpy. But a group called We're Oklahoma Education (WOKE) is encouraging parents to use it to pull kids from classes teaching these false views of history or other lessons corrupted by right-wing propaganda."

The Mahmoud ruling, according to Marcotte, "has opened the door for parents and activist groups in many states to take similar actions, citing religious objections to efforts by Republicans to inject right-wing propaganda into the classroom."

"The justices were so blinded by homophobia that they gave parents broad rights to challenge any book based on vague religious objections, without considering how that power could be used by all manner of people, including those with more progressive views," Marcotte argues. "Maybe nothing will come of it. Or maybe the Supreme Court will come to regret this as one of many half-baked decisions."

READ MORE: 'They need to stop': How 'unforced errors' from liberal advocates help a 'hostile court'

Amanda Marcotte's full article for Salon is available at this link.