The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday in a 6-3 decision that parents with religious objections can be granted a preliminary injunction in a case concerning opting out of lessons in Montgomery County public elementary schools that involve storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters, according to an opinion issued by the court.
The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, raised the question of whether Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) infringed upon the parents’ right under the First Amendment to exercise their religion when it included storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters in its curriculum without allowing families to opt out based on religious beliefs. The high court’s opinion in the case against MCPS and the county school board will directly impact MCPS policies and is likely to have far-reaching effects on public schools nationwide.
“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,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion for the court. “Based on these principles, we conclude that the parents are likely to succeed in their challenge to the Board’s policies.”
Alito wrote that “until all appellate review in this case is completed,” the school board must notify parents when books containing LGBTQ+ characters are used and allow the parents to excuse their children from the instruction.
In a joint statement Friday, MCPS and the county school board said the court’s decision wasn’t the outcome they hoped for or worked toward.
“It marks a significant challenge for public education nationwide,” the emailed statement said. “In Montgomery County Public Schools, we will determine next steps and navigate this moment with integrity and purpose — guided, as always, by our shared values of learning, relationships, respect, excellence, and equity.”
Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the law firm supporting the plaintiffs, said in an emailed statement that the decision was “a historic victory for parents rights in Maryland and across America.”
“Kids shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents’ permission,” The statement said. “Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents—not government—have the final say in how their children are raised.”
In an emailed statement Friday, the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA), the local teachers union, said it was “extremely disappointed” in the decision, but not surprised. The union said it was “seriously concerned about the ramifications that this decision will have on already overburdened educators.”
“MCEA believes that our public schools should remain inclusive places where differences are celebrated,” the statement said. “This decision sets us back and is reminiscent of a time when discrimination and intolerance were the norm.”
The court heard oral arguments on the case in April, during which it appeared that conservative members of the court favored the parents’ arguments. Much of the judges’ questioning in April centered around whether the lack of an opt-out option for parents violated their rights to free exercise of religion and the possible implications of the court’s ruling. The questioning, which lasted more than two hours, largely fell along the ideological lines of the judges.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the dissenting opinion in Friday’s case, writing that the court “has made clear that mere exposure to objectionable ideas does not give rise to a free exercise claim.”
“The damage to America’s public education system will be profound,” Sotomayor wrote. “Establishing a new constitutional right to opt out of any instruction that involves themes contrary to anyone’s religious beliefs will create a nightmare for school administrators.”
Mark Graber, a constitutional law professor in University of Maryland Baltimore’s Carey School of Law, said Friday the case would “turn schools into a cafeteria,” of parents picking and choosing what students can opt out of based on religious beliefs.
“Suppose, for example, someone wants to teach the Maryland State Constitution, which has a right to an abortion,” Graber told Bethesda Today. “Do parents who have religious objections to abortion get to opt out?”
Graber said the government holds a number of values that could be inconsistent with religious beliefs and “until today, that was never thought to interfere with public education.”
Outside of the Washington, D.C., courthouse in April, those representing both sides rallied. Dozens of LGBTQ+ community members and allies in colorful attire had gathered, many holding rainbow umbrellas to shield the group from potential pushback from opponents. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, hosted its own rally just steps away in partnership with Kids First, a local organization advocating on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Following the conclusion of oral arguments, Eric Baxter, senior counsel for Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said he was “optimistic” the court will be “sympathetic” to the plaintiffs.
The case before the court was brought by a group of parents who sued MCPS for not having a policy to notify families when LGBTQ+ storybooks are used in elementary school classrooms and not allowing families to opt out of those lessons.
The court said in January that it would hear the case, The Washington Post first reported. The parents asked the Supreme Court to take on the case in September, after a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in May 2024.
The group filed a federal lawsuit in May 2023, arguing against the county school board’s decision to incorporate LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks into the English language arts curriculum in elementary schools and its policy prohibiting parents from opting out their children from the instruction. The policy was first articulated by the school board in March 2023 after the district added six LGBTQ+ inclusive books to its supplemental curriculum for pre-kindergarten through fifth grade. MCPS revised the opt-out policy at that time, which stated that teachers would not notify or send a letter home to families when inclusive books are read in the classroom.
Three MCPS families filed the lawsuit against the county school board and the MCPS superintendent, alleging that the no-opt-out policy violated their constitutional right to religious expression and Maryland law. The lawsuit also alleged the inclusive books promote “political ideologies about family life and human sexuality that are inconsistent with sound science, common sense, and the well-being of children.”
In August 2023, a federal judge denied a motion for an injunction that aimed to force MCPS to rescind its no-opt-out policy temporarily.
A U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision to deny a request for a preliminary injunction in May. According to the ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, the parents who filed the appeal of the lower court’s denial in the lawsuit against the school system did not provide enough evidence to support their request.
This is a developing story and will be updated with more information as it becomes available.
