Supreme Court Rules 6-3 for Parental Opt-Outs in LGBTQ-Inclusive School Curriculum

Washington D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2025, issued a significant 6-3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, affirming parents' right to opt their children out of public school instruction featuring LGBTQ-inclusive books and themes that conflict with their religious beliefs. The decision, which saw the court's conservative majority side with a group of Maryland parents, establishes that schools cannot mandate exposure to such materials without providing an opt-out option.

The case originated from Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland, which incorporated LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks into its K-5 English Language Arts curriculum to promote diversity and inclusion. Initially, MCPS allowed parents to excuse their children from these lessons, but the policy was later rescinded due to concerns over administrative burden and potential stigma for LGBTQ students. This led a coalition of Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian parents to sue, arguing the no-opt-out policy violated their First Amendment rights to religious freedom.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, emphasized that the government burdens parents' religious exercise when it requires children to participate in instruction that poses "a very real threat of undermining" their religious beliefs. The Court found that the storybooks, while presented for literacy, conveyed normative viewpoints on same-sex marriage and gender that could conflict with deeply held religious convictions, especially for young, impressionable children. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, highlighting the novelty of such curriculum and arguing against the "standardization" of views.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the ruling could usher in "chaos" for public schools nationwide. She argued that mere exposure to ideas, even those conflicting with religious beliefs, does not constitute a free exercise violation and that requiring opt-outs for every potentially objectionable lesson would impose impossible administrative burdens and lead to a chilling effect on diverse curricula. Sotomayor asserted that the decision grants a "parental veto power" over educational content, traditionally decided by local school boards.

The Supreme Court's decision reverses lower court rulings that had sided with the school district. It mandates that MCPS, and by extension other school districts, must provide advance notice and allow parents to excuse their children from instruction involving the specific books in question or any similar materials. This ruling is expected to have broad implications for public education, potentially reshaping curriculum development and parental rights debates across the country.