The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision on Friday June 27, 2025, which ruled in favor of parents, allowing them to opt their children out of certain LGBTQ+ curriculum materials in Montgomery County, Maryland. What will this decision mean for your school?
In the majority decision by Justice Alito, the Court ruled that a school board’s introduction of LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks, along with the board’s decision to withhold opt-outs, places an unconstitutional burden on parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion.
The Court found that the parents had shown that they are likely to succeed in their 1st Amendment Free Exercise claims. As a result, the Court held that the parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction pending the completion of their lawsuit. The Court ordered the school board to notify the parents in advance whenever books regarding LGBTQ+ issues were to be used and to permit the parents to have their children excused from such instruction.
Background in the Case
Concerned with the diversity of the population of its county, the school board introduced the LGBTQ+ materials to correct what the board saw as a failure of inclusion.
The petitioners are parents who are Muslims, Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox. One is the parent of a Down Syndrome child requiring the extensive services offered in a public school. Their children range in age from 5 to 11.
The parents were originally given prior notice by the schools when LGBTQ+ materials were going to be introduced, and they were offered the opportunity to opt-out.
However, when the opt-out requests became so numerous as to disrupt instruction, the school board reversed its opt-out practice, and the parents brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in reliance on Yoder v. Wisconsin.
In Yoder, the United States Supreme Court held that the Amish could be excused from mandatary high school attendance. However, in the instant matter, the District Court dismissed Yoder as unique to the Amish and held that the school’s curriculum was consistent with the Free Exercise Clause.
The parents appealed, and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed based on the parents’ failure to show direct or indirect coercion arising out of the use of storybooks which show LGBTQ+ issues and families.
The United States Supreme Court reversed.
The Supreme Court Decision
The school board argued that the parents could always choose to send their children to private or to religious schools, or could home school them.
In response the Court wrote that the effect would be to condition access to a public education and so burden parents’ free exercise rights. In support, the Court cited to West Virginia Board of Ed. v. Barnette which found for Jehovah’s Witnesses who objected to mandatory participation in the flag salute which, they argued, coerced their children into complying with a mandate that contravened their belief that the flag is a graven image and so forbidden by their religious principles.
Likewise, the Court expanded the reach of Yoder and wrote that the case had a broader application than argued for it by the court below. In Yoder, the threat to religious exercise was premised on the fact that high school education would expose Amish children to wordly influences contrary to their beliefs and would substantially interfere with the religious development of Amish children.
As Yoder provides, the question as to whether a law substantially interferes with the religious development of a child is fact-intensive. To be considered are the ages of the children – elementary age children will be considered differently from high school students – and whether the materials are presented in a neutral manner or in a manner that is hostile to religious viewpoints and designed to impose on students a pressure to conform.
Thus, the Court in its Decision concluded that ‘we hold that the Board’s introduction of LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks – combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt-outs – substantially interferes with the religious development of their children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable.”
The Court proceeded to review the books at issue and the instructions to teachers for their use – including specific responses to questions students might ask – and determined that, under Yoder, it is clear that “instruction related to the storybooks will ‘substantially interfere’ with the parents’ ability to direct the ‘religious development’ of their children.” The Court wrote that the storybooks ‘unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same sex marriage and gender.” The school board had specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. Thus the Court disagreed with Justice Sotomayer’s dissent that the books at issue merely represented exposure to the message that LGBTQ+ people exist.
Finally, the Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis and found that the parents had both sustained their burden for showing irreparable harm and thus entitlement to a preliminary injunction and had also made a compelling case under a strict scrutiny analysis. Faced with the choice of risking their child’s exposure to instruction that burdens their free exercise rights or of paying substantial sums for alternative educational instruction, the school board had failed to show a compelling interest supporting its policy.
Bottom Line For Schools
This seems to be a case of bad facts making law. The Supreme Court ruling pointed out that an opt-out originally offered to parents of the LGBTQ+ materials was then withdrawn when the schools became so overwhelmed with the opt-outs as to disrupt the program. Rather than adjusting the program based of the concerns of some of the parents, the board essentially made attendance mandatory.
It would seem the lesson here is that educators had best be learners as well as teachers.
