Supreme Court rules for parents challenging school’s LGBTQ story time

The Supreme Court delivered a constitutional rebuke to Montgomery County, Maryland, on Friday, saying its public schools went too far in trying to force pro-LGBTQ messages on pre-K and elementary-age children without giving their families a chance to opt out if they had religious objections.

The 6-3 ruling found that the county’s policy, which called for pro-LGBTQ storybooks to be woven into the curriculum for students as young as kindergarten, violated the families’ First Amendment religious rights.

Justice Samual A. Alito Jr. said the families needed, at the least, to be notified when the LGBTQ lessons were going to be delivered and given a chance to have their children excused.

“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 George W. Bush appointee wrote. “And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.”

He included in his opinion full pages from some of the books in question. In one, a biracial male couple announces their engagement to be married, leaving a little girl upset. Another proclaims that bathrooms “should be a safe space” for transgender children. And another includes a boy upset that his biological sister wants to “become a boy.”

Montgomery County had cast its curriculum as an effort at tolerance.

Parents from mixed faiths had demanded an opt-out, which the county first granted, then withdrew, saying too many people were signing up for the opt-out.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the dissent for the court’s three Democratic appointees, said the county was on firm ground in trying to expose children to ideas that may be uncomfortable.

“That experience is critical to our nation’s civic vitality. 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,” Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, wrote.

She said that is “the very essence of public education.”

“The court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators,” the Obama appointee wrote.

Justice Alito countered that public schooling is compulsory for parents who can’t afford to homeschool or send children to private school. He said Justice Sotomayor’s vision would require parents to suffer indoctrination, then “try to counteract that teaching at home.”

“The Free Exercise Clause is not so feeble,” he said.

The Montgomery County Board of Education began its inclusivity reading program in 2022 for children from preschool through fifth grade. The program celebrates pronouns, pride parades and gender transitioning.

One of the books discussed during oral arguments that was used in the curriculum is “Pride Puppy,” which introduces 3- and 4-year-olds to pride parades. Students can try to spot an “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear” and “leather.”

The county removed that book after a year of use after it became a focus of the legal battle, Justice Clarence Thomas said.

Another book also debated by the justices, “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,” promotes letting children decide their gender and the idea that doctors only guess at birth.

Teachers were also instructed to tell students that “not everyone is a boy or girl” and “some people identify with both, sometimes one more than the other and sometimes neither.”

Justice Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee to the court, said if the county had prevailed, it would have created a “playbook for evading the First Amendment” for other jurisdictions.

He said the county took an intentionally aggressive approach by refusing an opt-out and weaving the lessons into the curriculum rather than keeping it as a distinct unit, like it does with sex education courses.

But Justice Sotomayor said weaving the messages throughout the curriculum was crucial for the county to make its point that LGBTQ characters are normalized. Reducing them to an “inclusivity hour” would emphasize their differences, she said.

“The point of inclusivity is to use books representing a diversity of identities and viewpoints the same way one might use any other book, communicating that one’s LGBTQ classmates should be treated in the same manner as anyone else,” she wrote.

Eric Baxter a lawyer at Becket who argued the case against the county, said the justices “restored common sense” by reasserting parents’ rights over their children’s education.

“Kids shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades or gender transitions without their parents’ permission,” he said.

LGBTQ groups, while complaining about the ruling, said it wasn’t a rejection of their own message but rather a narrow decision about parents’ rights.

“School districts should not be deterred from adopting inclusive curricula like Montgomery County schools’, which create safe and affirming learning environments and prepare kids to navigate our diverse society,” said Karen Loewy, senior counsel at Lambda Legal.

The Trump administration sided with the parents in the dispute.

The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor.