The United States Supreme Court, in a decision of 6-3, failed in favor of parents who seek to opt for their children in the public school instruction that conflicts with sincerely sustained religious beliefs.
The case, presented by a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, sought a guaranteed exemption from reading the classroom of stories books with LGBTQ songs, including same -sex marriage and the exploration of gender identity.
Liberal judges Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson cast the dissident votes in the 6-3 Decision.
Judge Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said in the decision that refusing to allow parents to opt for their children from the instruction that “raises a very real threat of undermining their religious beliefs and practices” violates the protections of the first amendment for religious exercise.
The “Introduction of the Montgomery County Board of the Tales Books’ LGBTQ+Included ‘, along with its decision to retain Opt Outs, places an unconstitutional burden on parents’ rights over the free exercise of their religion,” said Alito.
The Court determined that parents are also likely to succeed in their lawsuit for free exercise claims, and have shown that they have the right to a preliminary court while their claim continues.
In his dissent, Sotomayor accused the court of inventing a “constitutional right to avoid exposure to subtle issues contrary to religious principles that parents want to instill in their children.”
A police officer of the US Supreme Court. UU. He is located at the clock outside the Supreme Court, on June 26, 2025, in Washington.
Mariam Zuhaib/AP
He also reproduced in one of the books in the heart of the dispute: “Uncle Bobby Wedding”, an illustrated book for children about a gay couple and her niece, in the appendix of their dissent. Alito accused the book of advancing in a “specific, although subtle message,” about marriage, that two people, regardless of their sex, can marry whenever they love each other, that is “contrary to the religious principles that parents in this case want to instill in their children.”
“The myopic attempt of the majority of solving an important constitutional question through a close textual analysis of Uncle Bobby’s wedding also reveals its failure to accept and explain a fundamental truth: there are people LGBTQ. There are part of practically all communities and workplace of any appreciable size,” Sotomayor wrote in his dissent while exploding Alito for his interpretation of the book. “Eliminating books that represent LGBTQ people as their families happily accept it will not eliminate students’ exposure to that concept. Nor does the free exercise clause require that the government alter their programs to isolate students of that” message. “
In 2022, after introducing several books with LGBTQ themes in its language arts curriculum, the Montgomery County School Board allowed parents to opt for not participating if the content was considered objectable as a matter of faith. A year later, the officials reversed the course and said that the exclusion program had become difficult to handle and was contrary to inclusion values.
The parents alleged that the use of books in a primary school curriculum, without the opportunity to be excused, is equivalent to indoctrination led by the Government with respect to sensitive issues of sexuality. The school board insisted that books simply expose children to various points of view and ideas.
Waiting for the completion of the legal challenge, the School Board “must be ordered to notify in advance every time one of the books in question or any other similar book is used in some way and allows them to be excused from that instruction,” Alito wrote.
The conservative majority of the Supreme Court indicated during the oral arguments in April that it was ready to establish a right of parents to choose not to participate in sensitive subjects, saying that it should be common sense.
Eric Baxter, vice president and main advisor of the Becket Fund for Religious Freedom, who argued the case on behalf of the parents who sought exclusion, described the ruling as a “historical victory for the rights of parents in Maryland and throughout the United States.”
“Children should not be forced to conversations about Drag Queens, parades of pride or gender transitions without their parents’ permission,” Baxter said in a statement. “Today, the court restored common sense and made it clear that parents, not the government, have the last word about how their children are raised.”
A lawyer who represents the authors of some of the books involved in the case called the ruling “a deeply disappointing blow to the right to read in the first amendment.”
“It is a fundamental betrayal of the duty of public schools to prepare students to live in a diverse and pluralistic society,” lawyer Elly Brinkley said in a statement, with American free expression programs. “By allowing parents to take their children out of classrooms when they oppose a particular content, the judges are laying the foundations for a new border in the assault on books of all kinds in schools.”
Brinkley said that the options of religious objections “will cool what is taught in schools and introduce a narrower orthodoxy as the fear of offending any ideology or sensitivity is strengthened.”
President Donald Trump described the ruling as a “tremendous victory for parents” during a white house conference on Friday.
The attached attorney general Todd Blanche, during the informative session, thanked the Supreme Court for the decision, saying that restoring the rights of the parents to decide the education of their children “seems like a basic idea, but led him to the Supreme Court to leave the record.”
“Now that the failure allows parents to choose not to obtain Dangerous ideology and make the decisions of their children who believe it is correct,” said Blanche.
