Supreme Court Requires Schools to Allow Students to Opt Out of LGBTQ Lessons

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

A Maryland school district must give parents the opportunity to remove their children from LGBTQ-related lessons that violate their faith, the U.S. Supreme Court said Thursday, siding with advocates for religious freedom and parental rights. 

In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative justices said the Montgomery County Public Schools must reinstate its opt-out policy. The opinion puts districts nationwide on notice that parents should have a greater say over whether their children are exposed to views that conflict with what they learn at home. 

“We conclude that the parents are likely to succeed in their challenge to the board’s policies,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.”

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, now returns to a lower court, which will consider whether the district violated the parents’ First Amendment rights. Eric Baxter, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the parents, said he expects the district to settle.

“The court’s ruling clearly will extend through the end of this case,” he said. “I don’t think there are any facts the school board can produce that will change the court’s mind.” 

In a statement, the district said it “will determine next steps and navigate this moment with integrity and purpose.”

‘The assault on books’

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed sympathy for district officials’ decision to stop allowing families to opt out. 

“The result will be chaos for this nation’s public schools” and “impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,” she said in the minority opinion, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. What would happen, she asked, if a school had to alert parents any time a lesson or story might contradict what parents believe. “Next to go could be teaching on evolution, the work of female scientist Marie Curie, or the history of vaccines.”

Caption: In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of three liberals on the court, said the opinion would cause “chaos” for schools if they have to let students leave class every time a lesson or book offends parents’ religious beliefs. (Jacquelyn Martin-Pool/Getty Images)

PEN America, a free speech organization that advocates against restrictions on books, criticized the ruling, saying that it lays the “foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools.” 

The case reflects an ongoing clash between efforts to represent LGBTQ families in the curriculum and the rights of religious parents. The families who sued — Muslim, Catholic and Orthodox Christian — argued that simply having the books in the classroom offended their beliefs. But rather than demanding the district remove them outright, they asked that their children be allowed to leave class when teachers read the books. The Trump administration, 26 GOP-led states and 66 members of Congress sided with the parents.

“This ruling is more than just a legal win. It is a moral and spiritual triumph that acknowledges the sacred responsibility entrusted to parents,” said Billy Moges, a Christian mother of three and board member for Kids First, an advocacy group that formed to oppose the district’s move.

In a call with reporters Friday, Baxter called the ruling “a win-win” because it shows parents with religious disagreements “don’t get to veto everyone else’s practices.”

In 2022, the 160,000-student Montgomery district added LGBTQ inclusive books like “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” about a girl’s uncle who marries another man, and “Born Ready,” about a transgender boy, to its elementary curriculum. In March 2023, officials announced they would end their policy of allowing parents to opt their children out of listening to the stories and any classroom discussions about the books. They argued that the policy applied to all parents, not just those wanting opt outs for religious reasons. 

The books were not intended to influence students’ beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity, officials argued, but to reflect the diversity of the community. That didn’t satisfy the parents who sued, some of whom left the district over the issue.

“I would have loved to keep my children in public school, … but I just didn’t have that choice,” Moges told The 74 before the oral arguments in April. 

‘Need not wait for the damage’

The conservatives rejected the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s opinion that there was insufficient evidence of how teachers were actually using the books in the classroom to determine whether students were coerced into adopting the views they represented. 

“When a deprivation of First Amendment rights is at stake, a plaintiff need not wait for the damage to occur before filing suit,” Alito wrote. The books, he said, “are designed to present the opposite viewpoint to young, impressionable children, …present same-sex weddings as occasions for great celebration and suggest that the only rubric for determining whether a marriage is acceptable is whether the individuals concerned ‘love each other.’ ” 

The ruling came a day after the 10th anniversary of the court’s landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that made gay marriage legal nationwide. Alito, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented from the majority in that case. 

In the Mahmoud ruling, the court also shot down the suggestion — one that Jackson elaborated on during oral arguments — that parents who don’t like what public schools teach can put their children in private school or homeschool them.

“Public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot ‘condition’ its ‘availability’ on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise,” Alito wrote.

The ruling means that schools will have to give parents, especially those with young children, more advance notice when lessons are planned that touch on religious beliefs.

“The court drew a clear line: simple exposure to ideas is allowed, but instruction that pushes a particular moral viewpoint — especially without room for dissent — can cross into a constitutional burden,” said Asma Uddin, a Georgetown University law professor who focuses on religious liberty.  

Some faith leaders argue the books never should have been viewed through a religious lens and that the court’s decision will further marginalize LGBTQ students and families at a time when the Trump administration is seeking to remove their legal protections.  

The ruling “is just the latest example of religion being used as a tool of discrimination and misappropriated to harm our neighbors,” Rev. Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, a Christian social-justice organization, said in a statement. “The truth is that there is no scripture or religious doctrine that denies the existence of LGBTQ people.”

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter