Supreme Court Hears Landmark Case on Parental Opt-Outs for LGBTQ-Themed Books in Public Schools
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a pivotal case testing whether public school parents have a constitutional right to opt their children out of classroom lessons involving LGBTQ-themed storybooks. The case, originating from Montgomery County, Maryland, pits a diverse coalition of parents against the county’s school board, with the outcome poised to shape the boundaries of religious liberty, parental authority, and inclusive education nationwide.
Montgomery County’s Policy and Parents’ Objections
The dispute began in 2022, when Montgomery County Public Schools—the largest district in Maryland and one of the nation’s most religiously diverse—introduced a series of LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks into its elementary language arts curriculum. Titles such as “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” “Prince & Knight,” and “Intersection Allies” were selected to reflect the diversity of families and children in the community.
Initially, the school board allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons involving these books. However, in March 2023, officials reversed course, citing logistical challenges, increased absenteeism, and a desire to support all families. The board announced that parents would no longer receive advance notice or be able to excuse their children from instruction featuring the LGBTQ-themed materials.
A group of Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents—joined by others from Christian and Jewish backgrounds—filed suit, arguing that the policy violated their First Amendment right to exercise their religion freely. They contend the curriculum undermines their ability to instruct their children on issues of gender and sexuality under their faith and to control when and how such topics are introduced.
“We’re under no illusion, they’ll learn about these things, but in the formative years, what ultimately we could not agree with [Montgomery County Public Schools], is where inclusion stopped and indoctrination started,” said Wael Elkoshairi, a Muslim parent now homeschooling his daughter because of the policy, in comments to ABC7 News.
School Board’s Rationale and Community Response
The Montgomery County Board of Education, composed of locally elected representatives, maintains that the curriculum’s purpose is to expose students to a broad mix of people and ideas, and that the Constitution does not guarantee students the right to skip lessons inconsistent with their beliefs.
Board attorneys argued in court filings that accommodating widespread opt-outs had become “unworkable,” forcing teachers to manage large numbers of excused students and develop alternative lesson plans.
Emily McGowan, a parent of two children in the district, said the storybooks represent the families present in the community. “You cannot deny that we exist. We live here, our kids go to school here,” she told ABC7 News.
Some families with LGBTQ members expressed concern that opt-outs could stigmatize children from diverse backgrounds. Another Montgomery County parent, Sharon McGowan, asked, “What message is sent to our child who has two mothers?”
Religious Freedom vs. Educational Inclusion
The parents, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argue that the school board’s refusal to allow opt-outs is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s precedents protecting free religious exercise. They point to the long-recognized right of parents to direct their children’s moral and spiritual education.
“The government cannot substantially interfere with [the parental right] by compelling instruction on sensitive sexuality and gender-identity issues that strike at the heart of parental decision-making authority on matters of core religious importance,” said Michael O’Brien, a Becket Fund attorney, to CBS News.
The Trump administration filed a brief supporting the parents, asserting that the county’s policy forces families to choose between violating their religious beliefs or withdrawing from public education—a “textbook interference with the free exercise of religion,” according to then-acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris.
The school board counters that the policy does not coerce students or parents to change their beliefs, and that parents remain free to teach their children about their convictions regarding sexuality, marriage, and gender outside of school. Attorneys for the board also noted that the books are available for classroom use but not mandated in every lesson, and that teachers are instructed not to advance any particular viewpoint.
Justices Signal Divisions
During Tuesday’s oral arguments, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared sympathetic to the parents’ claims, suggesting that denying opt-outs for LGBTQ-themed books could infringe on religious rights. Justice Samuel Alito remarked, “It conveys a distinct moral message. While it may be a positive message, it is one that many religious individuals take issue with.
Liberal justices pressed the parents’ attorneys on whether mere exposure to different ideas constitutes a constitutional violation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “Is the religious objection simply seeing two men get married? They are only holding hands.”. She and others noted that the Court ruled in 2022 that exposure alone does not coerce religious convictions.
The justices also debated whether the standard for a religious burden should go beyond coercion. Several conservative justices questioned why opt-outs are available for sex education but not for LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks.
Opt-Outs, Diversity, and the Culture Wars
Nearly every state allows parents to opt their children out of sex education, but opt-outs for LGBTQ-related content are less common and often decided by local school boards. The Montgomery County case has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over parental rights, religious freedom, and efforts to promote diversity and inclusion in schools.
“The case is a good illustration of the fact that public schools are at ground zero in the culture wars,” said Jim Walsh, a Texas attorney who represents school boards, to ABC7 News. “We all want the school to reflect our values, but disagree. And certainly, issues about same-sex marriage, the rights of lesbians and gays, are right at the center of that.”
The Trump administration has made parental empowerment and opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives a cornerstone of its education policy, thereby raising the stakes of the case politically.
Parents, Authors, and Students Speak Out
The controversy has galvanized parents and students on both sides of the issue. More than 1,000 parents signed petitions and attended board meetings to protest the policy change, while others spoke out in Favor of the inclusive curriculum.
Authors of the contested books emphasized that their goal is to affirm children who are often excluded from traditional narratives. “This book is not saying that, you know, your child has to choose to be transgender. It’s saying respect someone who is trans and their ability to seek comfortable spaces,” said LaToya Council, co-author of “Intersection Allies,” to ABC7 News
Some parents who removed their children from public schools said the books crossed a line from inclusion to indoctrination. “The problem with some of these books is that they were love stories, so it was not just exposure to LGBTQ characters. These were love stories,” said Wael Elkoshairi
Lower Court Rulings and the Path to the Supreme Court
Both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the school board. The courts found that the no-opt-out policy did not burden the families’ religious exercise, as parents could still teach their beliefs at home, and there was no evidence of coercion or forced change in religious practice.
The families appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case in January 2025. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for schools nationwide, striking a balance between parental rights, religious freedom, and inclusive curricula.
Broader Implications and Expert Analysis
Legal experts warn that a ruling favouring the parents could lead to opt-outs for a wide range of curriculum topics, potentially undermining efforts to create inclusive school environments.
“If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, it’s not gonna stop with just sex and gender issues. It will cover a wide variety of things that parents may have objections to,” said Jim Walsh.
Supporters of the parents argue that the case is about restoring a limited opt-out right, not challenging the curriculum itself. “The democratic process is important, and that’s where we debate curriculum,” said Will Haun, senior attorney at the Becket Fund. “But here we’re talking about restoring an opt-out right, which is not a challenge to the curriculum”.
Decision Timeline and Future Outlook
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of June 2025. The ruling could set a precedent for how public schools nationwide address parental objections to curriculum content, especially on issues of gender, sexuality, and diversity.
As the debate continues, both sides emphasize the importance of respectful dialogue and the need to strike a balance between competing rights. “When people have differences of opinion on certain things, accommodations work well to relieve everybody, and we move on,” said Wael Elkoshairi.
Sharon McGowan, a parent of two, said her family will adapt regardless of the outcome. “If their decision harms us, we will figure out what we need to do at a personal and a community level to mitigate that harm”.