The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that parents have the constitutional right to opt their children out of public school lessons featuring LGBTQ themes, siding with a group of Maryland parents who argued the curriculum violated their religious beliefs.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed a lower court ruling and sided with families in Montgomery County, Maryland, where schools began incorporating books with gay and transgender characters into elementary school curricula in 2022. While parents were initially given the option to opt out, the school district later revoked that policy.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the removal of the opt-out provision placed an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ free exercise of religion.
“Without an injunction, these parents face a difficult choice: expose their children to instruction they believe violates their faith, or pay significant costs for private alternatives,” Alito wrote. “That burden is not permissible under the First Amendment.”
The Court’s ruling does not immediately reinstate the opt-out option but sends the case back to a lower court to determine how such a policy should be implemented.
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned the ruling could create widespread disruption in public education.
“Mandating that schools provide prior notice and opt-out options for every lesson that may conflict with any parent’s religious views will place an unworkable burden on educators,” Sotomayor wrote. “The real cost will be paid by students, whose education will be fragmented by inconsistent attendance and growing ideological divisions.”
The ruling fell along ideological lines, with the Court’s six conservative justices in the majority and its three liberal justices in dissent.
As part of the ruling, the justices also said the school district must give parents advance notice of lessons involving LGBTQ topics to allow time for families to withdraw their children from those specific sessions if they choose.
The case, which drew national attention and sparked fierce debate, will now return to the lower courts for further proceedings.
