The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, must be allowed to excuse their children from elementary school lessons involving LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks, citing constitutional protections for religious freedom and parental rights.
The 6-3 ruling, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, reverses lower court decisions and orders the Montgomery County Board of Education to reinstate a parental opt-out policy. The Court found that the school district’s refusal to allow opt-outs from instruction using certain LGBTQ+-themed books “substantially interferes with the religious development” of children and imposes an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of religion.
The dispute began during the 2022–2023 school year, when Montgomery County Public Schools introduced five LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks into the curriculum for students in kindergarten through fifth grade. The books, which feature storylines about same-sex marriage and gender identity, were selected as part of a broader effort to “disrupt” traditional thinking about sexuality and gender and to reflect the diversity of the county’s student population.
Initially, the school board allowed parents to be notified when the books would be taught and permitted them to excuse their children from related lessons. However, in March 2023, the board rescinded the opt-out policy, citing administrative difficulties and concerns over classroom disruption. The board stated that it could not accommodate the growing number of opt-out requests “without causing significant disruptions to the classroom environment” and that allowing some students to leave during these lessons could expose others to “social stigma and isolation.”
A group of parents from diverse religious backgrounds, including Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian families, filed suit, arguing that the mandatory exposure to the storybooks conflicted with their sincerely held religious beliefs about sexuality and gender. They claimed that the board’s policy infringed on their constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, referencing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).
Both the district court and a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the school board, finding insufficient evidence that the curriculum coerced students to abandon their religious beliefs or that it constituted unconstitutional indoctrination.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion forcefully rejected the lower courts’ reasoning, holding that the Constitution protects parents’ rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children, including in the context of public education. The Court emphasized that the challenged storybooks are “unmistakably normative,” designed to present certain values as worthy of celebration and others as outdated or wrong, and that the school board actively encouraged teachers to reinforce these viewpoints and reprimand dissent.
The Court found that the school board’s actions imposed the same kind of burden on religious exercise as the compulsory high school attendance law struck down in Yoder, and that strict scrutiny applied. The majority concluded that the board’s asserted interests in classroom management and social inclusion were undermined by its willingness to allow opt-outs for other topics and activities, and that the policy was not narrowly tailored.
The ruling orders Montgomery County Public Schools to notify parents in advance whenever the contested books, or similar materials, are used and to allow parents to excuse their children from those lessons, at least while litigation continues.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, authored a dissent. Justice Sotomayor argues that the school district’s curriculum does not compel affirmation or participation in any particular belief system, but merely exposes students to the existence of LGBTQ+ people and families. She contends that “exposing students to the ‘message’ that LGBTQ people exist and should be treated with respect” is not a constitutional violation, and that the Free Exercise Clause does not entitle parents to shield their children from ideas with which they disagree.
The dissent emphasizes that public education has always involved some exposure to ideas and people different from those encountered at home. Justice Sotomayor warns that allowing opt-outs whenever parents object to curricular content on religious grounds would undermine the ability of public schools to fulfill their mission of preparing students for citizenship in a diverse society.
Justice Sotomayor distinguishes this case from precedents like Wisconsin v. Yoder and West Virginia v. Barnette, noting that in those cases, the state compelled students to act against their religious beliefs. In contrast, she argues, the Montgomery County policy does not force students to affirm or renounce any belief, nor does it prevent parents from teaching their own values at home.
The dissent warns that the majority’s reasoning could extend far beyond LGBTQ+ issues, potentially enabling opt-outs for any curriculum content that conflicts with a parent’s religious beliefs, including lessons on evolution, racial equality, or American history. Justice Sotomayor argues that such a precedent threatens the coherence and inclusivity of public education.
