The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of Maryland parents who sued a school board over its refusal to allow elementary school children to be taken out of classes with LGBTQ-themed storybooks.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the justices overturned a lower court ruling that found the parents needed to show that their kids were being coerced to act differently than their religious beliefs.

People supporting the right to opt out their children from classes with LGBTQ-themed books protest outside the Supreme Court on April 22, 2025. AFP via Getty Images

A selection of books featuring LGBTQ characters were part of the Supreme Court case. AP

“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 majority.

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

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday bolstered religious rights as it ruled in favor of parents who objected to LGBTQ-themed books that a Maryland county approved for use in elementary school classrooms.

In a 6-3 vote, the court backed the parents’ claim that the Montgomery County Board of Education’s decision not to allow an opt-out for their children violated their religious rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment, which protects religious expression.

“The board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+ inclusive’ storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that is often receptive to religious claims. The liberal justices dissented.

“The result will be chaos for this nation’s public schools,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion.

“Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parents’ beliefs,” she added.

The dispute arose in 2022 when the school board in the diverse county just outside Washington revised its English language arts curriculum.

The board determined that it wanted more storybooks to feature LGBTQ elements to better reflect some of the families who live in the area.

Approved books include “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” which features a gay character who is getting married, and “Born Ready,” about a transgender child who wants to identify as a boy.

The school board said that although the books are in classrooms and available for children to pick up, teachers are not required to use them in class.

Initially the school board indicated that parents would be able to opt their children out of exposure to the books, but it quickly changed course, suggesting that would be too difficult to implement.

Plaintiffs include Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, a Muslim couple who have a son in elementary school. Members of the Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox churches also sued, as did a parent group called Kids First that has members of various faiths.

They said they had a right to protect their children from being taught content that conflicts with their religious beliefs by expressing support for same-sex relationships and transgender rights.

The Trump administration backed the challengers.

A federal judge and the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the school board.

The Supreme Court has in the past backed religious rights in cases involving conflicting arguments made by LGBTQ rights advocates. In one recent ruling, the court in 2023 ruled in favor of a Christian web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the case of Mahmoud v. Tayloron Friday in favor of religious parents in a Maryland school district who sought an opt-out for their children from LGBTQ-themed books.

The Court determined that not allowing opt outs violates the parents’ freedom of religion, with Justice Samuel writing the majority opinion, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

“We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children,” Alito wrote. “And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.”

Mahmoud v. Taylor was brought by parents of varying faiths who have children in the Montgomery County Public Schools. When several LGBTQ-themed books were made available in classrooms in October 2022, parents were offered an opt-out.

However, it became difficult to accommodate the number of opt-outs, according to the school district, and school officials worried that students who are part of the LGBTQ+ community or have family members who are would be subjected to social stigma and isolation. The opt-out policy also put the district at risk of noncompliance with anti-discrimination laws, so the district ended the policy in 2023.

Parents sued to get the policy reinstated. Both a U.S. district court and an appeals court denied their request, so they appealed to the Supreme Court. The named plaintiff is Tamer Mahmoud, a Muslim parent with three children in the district, but several other Muslim and Christian parents are involved. The named defendant is Thomas W. Taylor, the Montgomery County superintendent of schools.

Sotomayor said in her dissent that the ruling “threatens the very essence of public education,” as it “constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.”

“That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society,” Sotomayor wrote. “Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now. The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent.”

This story has been updated with additional information.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the case of Mahmoud v. Tayloron Friday in favor of religious parents in a Maryland school district who sought an opt-out for their children from LGBTQ-themed books.

The Court determined that not allowing opt outs violates the parents’ freedom of religion, with Justice Samuel writing the majority opinion, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

“We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children,” Alito wrote. “And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.”

Mahmoud v. Taylor was brought by parents of varying faiths who have children in the Montgomery County Public Schools. When several LGBTQ-themed books were made available in classrooms in October 2022, parents were offered an opt-out.

However, it became difficult to accommodate the number of opt-outs, according to the school district, and school officials worried that students who are part of the LGBTQ+ community or have family members who are would be subjected to social stigma and isolation. The opt-out policy also put the district at risk of noncompliance with anti-discrimination laws, so the district ended the policy in 2023.

Parents sued to get the policy reinstated. Both a U.S. district court and an appeals court denied their request, so they appealed to the Supreme Court. The named plaintiff is Tamer Mahmoud, a Muslim parent with three children in the district, but several other Muslim and Christian parents are involved. The named defendant is Thomas W. Taylor, the Montgomery County superintendent of schools.

Sotomayor said in her dissent that the ruling “threatens the very essence of public education,” as it “constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.”

“That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society,” Sotomayor wrote. “Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now. The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent.”

This story has been updated with additional information.

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case on the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters.

The court seemed likely to find that the Montgomery County school system could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer.

Do you think parents should be able to opt out their children from LGBTQ-themed lessons in school?

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

Can’t see the poll? Vote here

The Baltimore Sun reader poll is an unscientific survey in which website users volunteer their opinions on the subject of the poll.

To read the results of previous reader polls, click here.