The U.S. Supreme Court sided in a decision released Friday with a group of religious parents in Maryland who wanted the right to opt their children out of participating in readings that explore LGBTQ issues.
The opinion in Mahmoud v. Taylor, written by Justice Samuel Alito, was supported by the court’s six conservative justices, while the three liberal justices issued a dissent.
The case centered around curriculum introduced in 2022 to children in pre-kindergarten to fifth grade classes in the state’s largest school district, Montgomery County Public Schools. Discussions involved LGBTQ stories, including “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” which involves a little girl’s uncle marrying a man, and “Born Ready,” a story about a transgender boy.
Initially, the school district allowed parents to opt their children out, but eventually stopped providing notice of when the curriculum would be scheduled. A group of Muslim, Jewish and Christian parents took the issue to the Supreme Court, arguing that their First Amendment rights, specifically religious freedoms, were at stake.
The parents emphasized that their intention was not to ban the books from the curriculum, but to have their children removed from the discussion when they occur in class.
“The individual parents come from diverse religious backgrounds and hold sincere views on sexuality and gender which they wish to pass on to their children,” the syllabus of the case said.
In Alito’s opinion, he said “the parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. 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 ruling will require the Maryland school district to give parents advance notice so they can remove their children from the classroom when certain topics are discussed, which was perceived as another win added to the many religious freedom cases that have been brought before the court recently.
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling undermines the progress the American education system has made in inclusivity. She also warned that allowing an opt-out option will have damaging ripple effects on schools across the country.
“The harm will not be borne by educators alone: Children will suffer too. Classroom disruptions and absences may well inflict long-lasting harm on students’ learning and development,” she argued. “Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the opportunity to opt out of every book, presentation, or field trip where students might encounter materials that conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.”
Reactions following the ruling
During a press briefing on Friday alongside President Donald Trump and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said he was pleased with the court’s decision, saying it “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education.”
“Seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that,” he said.
Corinne Johnson, founder and president of Utah Parents United, reiterated Blanche’s words, telling the Deseret News the ruling ultimately gave parents back rights that should have always been theirs.
“Here in Utah, we’ve fought hard for these legal protections. In 2023, the legislature passed a right of conscience law that ensures parents can protect their children from instruction that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs,” she said. “This ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court affirms what we’ve already enshrined in Utah law and strengthens the national foundation for parental rights.”
William Duncan, the Sutherland Institute’s constitutional law and religious freedom fellow, told the Deseret News he wasn’t entirely surprised by the ruling because of how oral arguments had gone over the case back in April.
In terms of religious freedom more generally, Duncan said he believes the Supreme Court has been “very consistent” in trying to ensure every American can exercise their First Amendment rights “in all parts of life.”
“The cumulative effect of these religious freedom opinions is to help lawmakers, and the public more generally, that the command of the First Amendment needs to be applied consistently and uniformly, and that we can avoid a lot of potential conflicts if states just both make and enforce these accommodations, then we don’t have to have lawsuit after lawsuit,” he said.
But like Sotomayor, not every Utah group saw the ruling as a win for all Americans. Marina Lowe, policy director for Equality Utah, told the Deseret News in a statement that she believes the decision takes away the voices of people in the LGBTQ community.
“We stand firmly against the censorship or segregation of books simply because they feature LGBTQ individuals,” she said. “Every family deserves to feel seen, heard, and respected. One of the most defining strengths of our nation is its diversity — a place where people from all walks of life live together in a shared commitment to freedom and dignity. This is what truly makes America great."