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 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor 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’s refusal to allow opt-outs unconstitutionally burdened the parents’ right to direct their children’s religious upbringing.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito emphasized that the Constitution protects parents’ rights to guide their children’s religious development.
“We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct ‘the religious upbringing of their children,'” he wrote. “And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.”
In the dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision could erode public education’s foundational role.
Quoting a 1987 Supreme Court opinion for Edwards v. Aguillard, she described schools as “the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.” That vision, she argued, “will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.”
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 “unworkable,” and allowing many students to skip the readings would send the wrong message to students whose families include members of the LGBTQ+ community.
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 — and one Supreme Court justice during oral argument — for asking readers ages 3-4 to search, on pages depicting participants in an LGBTQ+ pride parade, for images including “underwear,” “leather,” “lip ring,” “[drag] king,” and “[drag] queen.”
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’s 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’ 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.
