Supreme Court Sides With Religious Maryland Parents Over Opt-Outs for LGBTQ+ Books

The Supreme Court on Friday sided with Maryland parents of various faiths who sued their school board over its refusal to allow their K-5 children to opt out of LGBTQ+ curriculum.

In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education announced new “inclusivity” books for K-5 students and took away parental notice and opt-outs for story books that discuss topics like “gender” transitions, pride parades, and preferred pronouns. Some of the reading materials include The Pride Puppy, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope.

The High Court issued a 6-3 decision — with the three most liberal-leaning justices dissenting — ruling that the board’s introduction of LGBTQ+ curriculum, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, “places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion.” 

“The parents have therefore shown that they are likely to succeed in their free exercise claims. They have likewise shown entitlement to a preliminary injunction pending the completion of this lawsuit,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority opinion.

“In the absence of an injunction, the parents will continue to be put to a choice: either risk their child’s exposure to burdensome instruction, or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services,” he continued. “As we have explained, that choice unconstitutionally burdens the parents’ religious exercise, and the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

Alito wrote that the books carry with them “a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs that the parents wish to instill in their children,” and “impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are hostile to their parents’ religious beliefs.”

“And the books exert upon children a psychological pressure to conform to their specific viewpoints,” he wrote. 

The majority opinion included pictures of excerpts from the LGBTQ+ books that the school board wanted to share with young children between the ages of 5 and 11 years  old.

Appendix to opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 606 U. S. ____ (2025)606 Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297 in the Supreme Court of the United States

MAHMOUD v. TAYLOR
Appendix to opinion of the Court App. to Pet. for Cert. 350a

MAHMOUD v. TAYLOR
Appendix to opinion of the Court App. to Pet. for Cert. 459a

MAHMOUD v. TAYLOR
Appendix to opinion of the Court App. to Pet. for Cert. 461a

Justices overall said parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction while the case proceeds and noted that the school board should be ordered to notify parents in advance whether any of the books in question will be used for instruction. The decision reverses a previous 2023 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit siding with the school board. 

Conservative-leaning Justice Clarence Thomas wrote his own concurring opinion “to emphasize an important implication of this decision for schools across the country.”

“The Board may not insulate itself from First Amendment liability by weaving” religiously offensive material throughout its curriculum and thereby significantly increase the difficulty and complexity of remedying parents’ constitutional injuries,” he wrote. “Were it otherwise, the State could nullify parents’ First Amendment rights simply by saturating public schools’ core curricula with material that undermines family decisions in the area of religious training.”

“The ‘Framers intended’ for ‘free exercise of religion to flourish.’ Insofar as schools or boards attempt to employ their curricula to interfere with religious exercise, courts should carefully police such ‘ingenious defiance of the Constitution’ no less than they do in other contexts,” he continued.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Sotomayor wrote:

Today’s ruling ushers in that new reality. Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’ themes ‘contrary to the religious principles’ that parents wish to instill in their children. Exposing students to the ‘message’ that LGBTQ people exist, and that their loved ones may celebrate their marriages and life events, the majority says, is enough to trigger the most demanding form of judicial scrutiny.

…The result will be chaos for this Nation’s public schools. Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,” she continued. “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.

Eric Baxter, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty attorney representing the parents, celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision as a “historic victory for parental rights.”

“This is a historic victory for parental 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,” he said. “Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents—not government—have the final say in how their children are raised.”

The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on X @thekat_hamilton.