The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled that parents have a religious free exercise right to have their children excused from the use of LGBTQ+-themed storybooks in schools.
The 6-3 decision in is significant for schools across the nation as it will allow parents with religious concerns to remove their children or possibly raise other objections to a range of curricular decisions. The court said the school board鈥檚 refusal to allow opt-outs unconstitutionally burdened the parents鈥� right to direct their children鈥檚 religious upbringing.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. emphasized that the Constitution protects parents鈥� rights to guide their children鈥檚 religious development.
鈥淲e have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 鈥榯he religious upbringing of their children,鈥欌�� he wrote. 鈥淎nd we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.鈥�
The decision, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, grants a preliminary injunction sought by the parents and orders that 鈥渦ntil all appellate review in this case is completed, the [school] board should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.鈥�
In the dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned that the decision could erode public education鈥檚 foundational role.
Quoting a 1987 Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, she described schools as 鈥渢he symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.鈥� That vision, she argued, 鈥渨ill become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents鈥� religious beliefs.鈥�
Reading from her dissent from the bench, Sotomayor said, 鈥淥ne thing is clear: The damage to America鈥檚 public education system will be profound.鈥�
Five storybooks at issue before the high court
The case comes from the 160,000-student Montgomery County school district, just outside of Washington. The Maryland district began using the storybooks with LGBTQ+ themes in its English/language arts curriculum in 2022. At first, it allowed religious parents to keep their children out before reversing course and ending the opt-outs. The district said the number of such requests had become 鈥渦nworkable,鈥� and allowing many students to skip the readings would send the wrong message to students whose families include members of the LGBTQ+ community.
The storybooks currently in use in pre-K and elementary grades are Born Ready; Intersection Allies; Love, Violet; Prince & Knight; and Uncle Bobby鈥檚 Wedding鈥攁ll featuring LGBTQ+ characters and themes.
Two books that were initially part of the Montgomery County program were later pulled, My Rainbow and Pride Puppy! The latter book in particular drew criticism from some parents鈥攁nd one Supreme Court justice during oral argument鈥攆or asking readers ages 3-4 to search, on pages depicting participants in an LGBTQ+ pride parade, for images including 鈥渦nderwear,鈥� 鈥渓eather,鈥� 鈥渓ip ring,鈥� "[drag] king,鈥� and 鈥淸drag] queen.鈥�
After unsuccessfully lobbying the school board to reinstate the opt-outs, a group of Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ethiopian Orthodox parents sued the district. They argued that the reversal violated the First Amendment鈥檚 guarantee of free exercise of religion. Two lower courts declined to grant a preliminary injunction.
Lawyers for the parents argued that there is a national consensus when it comes to parental control over teaching children about gender and sexuality, reflected in widespread opt-outs offered for sex education lessons in public schools, including in Montgomery County.
The school district and its allies, which included most major education groups, argued that federal courts have repeatedly upheld public school curricula against similar religious objections. They cited a long history of rulings affirming schools鈥� discretion in setting required coursework.
Some of those groups also warned that allowing opt-outs for gender and sexuality content could open the door to broader exemptions and could even lead to some parents seeking to excuse their children from lessons on activities such as critical thinking, anti-drug abuse, or Earth Day.
Books seen as promoting specific values, not just representation
Alito, in his majority opinion, offered excerpts from the storybooks and discussed the school system鈥檚 guidance to 糖心动漫vlog for how they were to be used in the elementary school curriculum.
鈥淟ike many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative,鈥� Alito said. 鈥淭hey are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.鈥�
Alito described Uncle Bobby鈥檚 Wedding as offering a pro-same-sex marriage message, even if it was more subtle than some of the other books.
The book 鈥渁sserts that two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex, so long as they 鈥榣ove each other鈥�,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hat view is now accepted by a great many Americans, but it is directly contrary to the religious principles that the parents in this case wish to instill in their children.鈥�
Alito stressed the significance of Wisconsin v. Yoder, the 1972 case in which the high court held that the Old Order Amish could not be compelled to send children to school beyond 8th grade. He said the lower courts in this case wrongly dismissed it as a special exception for one religious minority.
Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he bemoaned the rise of teaching 鈥渧ery young children鈥� about sexuality and gender identity, and he suggested schools could keep such lessons in optional sexuality classes rather than try to weave them throughout the curriculum. He also had a disapproving mention in a footnote of Pride Puppy!, one of the two books the Montgomery County school district had pulled from the storybook program.
Dissent warns against narrowing inclusion efforts
Sotomayor, in her dissent, repeatedly stressed that the school system was recognizing that LGBTQ+ individuals and families exist.
鈥淭he point of the [school] board鈥檚 program is to ensure that diverse groups of students are represented in reading materials across the curriculum,鈥� she said. 鈥淭he board cannot accomplish that purpose simply by consolidating all books involving LGBTQ characters into a single inclusivity hour and allowing opt outs, as the majority appears to believe.鈥�
She said the court鈥檚 ruling will be difficult to administer in schools and will lead to broader curricular challenges from parents.
鈥淩equiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent鈥檚 religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,鈥� Sotomayor said.
Eric Baxter, the vice president and senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who argued the case for the religious plaintiffs, said, 鈥淭his is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn鈥檛 be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents鈥� permission. Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents鈥攏ot government鈥攈ave the final say in how their children are raised.鈥�
The Montgomery County school board and district, in a statement, said the decision 鈥渋s not the outcome we hoped for or worked toward. It marks a significant challenge for public education nationwide. In Montgomery County Public Schools, we will determine next steps and navigate this moment with integrity and purpose鈥攇uided, as always, by our shared values of learning, relationships, respect, excellence, and equity.鈥�
Justin Driver, a Yale University law professor and a leading scholar of education law, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the school district, said the decision 鈥渟ucceeds in opening Pandora鈥檚 box in countless classrooms located in our nation鈥檚 public schools. It unwisely grants parents and students the authority to, in effect, veto individual school lessons and assignments, thereby wreaking educational havoc.鈥�
