WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on June 27 ruled in favor of an interfaith group of Maryland parents who sought to opt their children out of classroom instruction pertaining to books containing LGBTQ+ themes to which they object on religious grounds.
According to court documents, some of the materials in question included the book “Love, Violet,” which a Kirkus Review described as a “sweetly empathetic, child-friendly girl-girl romance.”
The parents argued that the school board violated their First Amendment rights in doing so, as they objected to the materials on religious grounds.
Previously, a federal judge found that Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland’s largest public school system and one of the country’s most religiously diverse counties, does not have to give advance notice to parents so that they may opt their children out of classroom discussion and reading of the books in question while they pursued a challenge to the policy.
“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 for the 6-3 majority.
“And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction,” he said.
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that public schools “offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society.
“That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality,” she said. “Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.”
Sotomayor argued the ruling will create “chaos for this Nation’s public schools.” She said 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.”
Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, a religious liberty law firm representing the parents, welcomed the high court’s decision.
“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 in a statement.
“Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents — not government — have the final say in how their children are raised,” he said.
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, said in a statement, “Every child deserves to see themselves reflected in the stories they read and to be celebrated in their classrooms for who they truly are.”
“This ruling not only tells LGBTQ+ students that they don’t belong, but that their experiences and existence are less worthy of respect,” Robinson said. “In a country where LGBTQ+ youth already face disproportionate rates of bullying, homelessness, and mental health challenges, this ruling weaponizes religious freedom to further marginalize vulnerable students. It’s wrong, it’s dangerous and it’s cruel — plain and simple.”
The Trump administration backed the interfaith coalition of parents. In comments at the White House on June 27, President Donald Trump called the ruling “a great ruling for parents.”
“It’s really a ruling for parents,” he said. “They lost control of the schools, they lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents.”
The ruling came the same day the Supreme Court limited the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions in a case concerning the Trump administration’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents without legal status or temporary visa holders, without addressing whether or not the order itself is constitutional.
