A Lexington parent won a preliminary injunction against Lexington Public Schools, after the parent accused the school district of violating his religious beliefs and constitutional rights by sharing LGBTQ-themed materials with his son as part of a classroom lesson.
The order from US District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV came just months after the US Supreme Court decision Mahmoud v. Taylor, which supported the rights of parents to opt their children out of instruction on LGBTQ-related materials based on religious grounds.
In the Lexington case, the parent of a 5-year-old kindergartner at the Joseph Estabrook Elementary School accused the school of refusing his requests to opt his son out of the materials related to sexual orientation and gender identity that he objected to on religious grounds, according to court papers.
In Saylor’s order on Tuesday, the judge wrote that the parent was likely to show the school’s LGBTQ classroom materials burdened his constitutional right to freely exercise his religion by posing the threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices the parent wished to instill.
Absent an injunction, the parent was also likely to suffer irreparable harm due to the violation of his religious beliefs under the First Amendment, according to the order.
“While defendants contend that implementing the notice and opt-out procedures contemplated by plaintiff’s proposed injunction would burden them to some degree, any potential harm they face does not outweigh that faced by plaintiff — particularly where defendants concede that [the parent’s son] must be opted out of at least some materials,” Saylor wrote in his order.
The preliminary injunction will remain in place until vacated, modified, or superseded by the court, or until a trial that decides the case on its merits, according to Saylor.
According to court papers, the Lexington parent is a “committed, practicing Christian” with deeply held religious beliefs: “God created people in His image . . . either male or female” and “sexuality is designed by God to be expressed only within the context of a one-man, one-woman marriage,” filings said.
Because of those beliefs, it “violates [his] religious beliefs to allow [the parent’s son] to be instructed in content that focuses on diversity, equity, and inclusion issues, including issues of race, gender, and sexuality, taught from a secular worldview,” court papers said.
Earlier in the fall, the parent sought to remove his son from the school’s health class, as well as any “DEI curriculum,” according to court papers. He also opposed the use of books in class with LGBTQ themes, including “Families, Families, Families!” and “All are Welcome,” which each depicted illustrations of LGBTQ families.
The books imply “all family arrangements are equally morally acceptable,” according to the lawsuit.
The preliminary injunction prohibits Lexington from sharing “LGBTQ+ Educational Materials” with the parent’s son at school during the current academic year. The order named “Families, Families, Families!”, “All are Welcome”, and several other books, while also applying to lesson plans, teaching guides, syllabi, and video and audio recordings.
The order prohibited sharing materials that “depict or describe LGBTQ+ characters, relationships, or activities, or LGBTQ+ political or social advocacy,” according to court filings.
It also required Lexington to “make reasonable efforts” to ensure that the boy is not taught or exposed any LGBTQ materials his father objects to in a school setting.
The parent, referred to as Alan L. in court papers, is being represented by the American Center for Law and Justice and the Massachusetts Family Institute, which have represented other families in legal cases involving religious beliefs.
“This decision represents a major victory for families of faith not just in Lexington, but across Massachusetts,” Sam Whiting, counsel at Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center, said. “Public school districts are now on notice that they cannot ignore constitutional protections for parents without facing significant liability.”
The lawsuit named the Lexington Public Schools, the Lexington School Committee, and several school and district administrators as defendants.
Sasha M. Gill, one of the attorneys representing Lexington, said the district would comply with the preliminary injunction.
Gill said there were key differences between the Mahmoud case in the Supreme Court and the Lexington case.
“In the Mahmoud case, [it] was an LGBTQ-focused curriculum and in this case, it’s not an LGBTQ curriculum,” Gill said. Lexington had “materials that are being presented as part of different topics” like teaching students that all are welcome in the school community, Gill said.
“The materials at issue in this Lexington case, if they address LGBTQ issues at all, they are really only incidental to the topics instructed on,” Gill said.
In November, the district asked Saylor to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the boy’s classroom teachers did not recall him being in the classes when the books were shared with students.
The boy, who has an individualized education plan that required out-of-classroom services, was being provided that care when students saw the materials.
The boy “spends more of his school day outside his general-education Kindergarten classroom than inside it,” lawyers for the schools wrote.
Saylor, in his order Tuesday, said the Lexington case is “squarely controlled” by the Supreme Court’s Mahmoud decision.
The Lexington parent objected to his son being shown materials concerning LGBTQ+ relationships or values; the school indicated it would continue showing at least some of those materials; and he sought the injunction because the school failed to provide him notice and a “reasonable opportunity” to opt his child out of classroom instruction that violated his religious beliefs, according to Saylor’s order.
Saylor noted that Lexington already has a system for parents to opt children out of classroom instruction for religious reasons.
But the parent argued in court papers that the system “is effectively unavailable” because it required more specificity in his requests than he could provide, according to court filings.
John Hilliard can be reached at john.hilliard@globe.com or on Signal at john_hilliard.70. Follow him on Bluesky at iamjohnhilliard.bsky.social.