AMNA NAWAZ: The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments## today in a major case focused on# parental rights and public schools.

At the center of the case is a dispute over# curriculum in Montgomery County, Maryland,## a Washington, D.C., suburb.

In 2022, the# county school board adopted a new language## arts curriculum that included books featuring# LGBTQ characters, including a picture book## about a dog who gets lost at a Pride parade# and others featuring transgender children.

Some parents asked for their children to be# opted out from the curriculum because the books## conflicted with their religious beliefs.

The# board stopped allowing opt-outs the next year,## arguing they were unmanageable and# undermined their obligation to foster## inclusive environments.

That decision# sparked protests and outrage from some## parents in the community, some of# whom were outside the court today.

SVITLANA ROMAN, Montgomery County Parent: We,# on behalf of other parents sharing our faith,## ask the Supreme Court to stand up for the# rights of our children in accordance -- for## us to raise our children in accordance# with our faith and protect them from## instruction on controversial topics that go# against our deeply held religious beliefs.

AMNA NAWAZ: The justices' decision could have# major consequences for public schools nationwide.

To explore today's arguments, I'm joined now by# "News Hour" Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle.

Great to see you, Marcia.

MARCIA COYLE: Good to see you, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, before we jump into.. just big picture, what stood out# to you from the arguments today?

MARCIA COYLE: Justice Kavanaugh made a comment.# He said, with religion cases, the court generally## looks for a win-win, meaning both sides come away# with something.

There's -- no one is a big loser.

But my sense was, after today's arguments,# there's no way yet that they found a win-win.## They're looking for a rule, a line to# draw, so that, as Justice Kagan says,## you don't suddenly have opt-outs for everything# in public schools, or, as the parents -- or as## the school board's attorney was asked, why do# you want to die on this hill of no opt-outs?

So the court is struggling here, and I think# it's going to take them a lot of discussion.

AMNA NAWAZ: Unclear where that line is right now.

MARCIA COYLE: Yes, exactly.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well..

I just want to play a part of what Justice Alito# and Justice Jackson had to say on this today.

SAMUEL ALITO, U.S. Supreme Court Associate# Justice: The book has a clear message,## and a lot of people think it's a good message,# and maybe it is a good message, but it's a## message that a lot of people who hold on to# traditional religious beliefs don't agree with.

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, U.S. Supreme Court# Associate Justice: I guess I'm struggling## to see how it burdens a parent's religious# exercise if the school teach.. that the parent disagrees with.

You have a# choice.

You don't have to send your kid to## that school.

You can put them in another# situation.

You can homeschool them.

How## is it a burden on the parent if they have# the option to send their kid elsewhere?

AMNA NAWAZ: Marcia, what do those# arguments reveal to you about how## they're thinking about this?

And do you# get a sense of which way they're leaning?

MARCIA COYLE: My sense was -- and I hate to# predict on arguments at all -- but my sense## was there may be more sentiment for the# parents here than for the school board.

Justice Alito's comments, he was most# skeptical of the school board and## the books and what the books convey, especially to# pre-K students and kindergarten students,whereas## Justice Jackson was looking at the law here.# Courts have said that exposure of ideas## that -- some may object to# because of their religious## beliefs, that does not violate the free# exercise clause in the First Amendment.

So the court spent most of the# time, well over an hour, discussing,## is this exposure through these books or is# it a burden, is it coercion?

So we're going## back and forth with many hypotheticals about# gay teachers, the books themselves showing a## wedding of two men, and whether they're# just exposing these kids to these ideas.

The school board claims that these books## are really designed to encourage# civility and respect for others.

AMNA NAWAZ: And in those hypotheticals,# sort of leads me to my next question,## which, if the court does rule in# the parents' favor, what are we## talking about in terms of the impact this# could have on public schools nationwide?

MARCIA COYLE: Well, if they# rule in favor of the parents,## certainly, you're going to see more# opt-outs in situations like this.

Now, opt-outs are fairly common in high schools# for certain reasons.

You see them in -- most## often in health classes involving sex education,# obviously.

But as Justice Kagan pointed out, you## might also see opt-outs requested for the teaching# of evolution in biology and other reasons.

But, still, you may see more opt-outs# on the basis of religious beliefs.

For## the school boards too, though,# it could be -- if they lose,## it could be an administrative nightmare.# They say these books are part of the English## language curriculum.

It's not a single# unit like sex education in a health class.

So having kids moving in or out, trying to arrange# when that happens, alternative education plans,## could really create problems for schools.# And Justice Jackson also pointed out that,## if the parents win, she worries that local# control of education is eroded, and you're## going to find judges then deciding what books can# be used -- what kind of books burden religion.

And she didn't think that -- obviously# think that was the right role for judges.

AMNA NAWAZ: Yes, Marcia, it's# worth pointing out the court is## hearing another case related to# religion and schools next week.## You have the 6-3 conservative majority that has# backed religious rights arguments in the past.

When you take a step back, what role# is the Roberts court playing when it## comes to religious rights debates in this country?

MARCIA COYLE: Amna, I think that# this is going to be one of the## legacies of the Roberts court since# the chief justice joined in 2005.

You## have three religion cases this term.# They are in very different contexts.

But the Roberts court has shown# a trend of pushing for a greater## government accommodation of religion.# And they have done that by elevating## the free exercise clause over that other# very important clause, the Establishment## Clause and that clause's concerns about# government entanglement with religion.

And I think that's something we will see# a little more dramatically next week when## they take up the religious charter school case.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, we will# be waiting and watching.

That is## "News Hour"'s Supreme Court analyst, Marcia Coyle.

Marcia, thank you.

Always great to have you here.

MARCIA COYLE: Always a pleasure.

Thank you.