Supreme Court Pours Cold Water On LGBTQ+ Books in Schools

In a major blow to LGBTQ+ instruction in the classroom, the Supreme Court just ruled that religious parents can opt their children out of school classes when books with LGBTQ+-related storylines will be discussed.

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, was brought by an alliance of Christian and Muslim parents against the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland. The parents argued that the school was exposing their children to books with LGBTQ+ themes without families' consent and in violation of their religious beliefs.

The books were freely available for students to pick up and read, and included stories on everything from a boy wearing a dress to school, to a prince who doesn’t want to marry any of the princesses in his kingdom, to the tale of a puppy getting lost in a Pride parade.

Though the school initially offered opt-outs for religious parents, this policy proved too burdensome for school administrators to handle. The opt-out options were rescinded during the 2023-2024 school year.

When parents challenged the decision, the case made its way to the nation's highest court. 

There, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the district has to offer opt-outs for religious parents when LGBTQ+ subjects may be broached in the classroom.

But legal experts say the impact of this case is far-reaching, and it sets a precedent that could impact education nationwide. 

What the Court Said

Essentially, the justices determined that exposing children to LGBTQ+ content in schools was a violation of their parents' religious rights. 

"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," wrote Justice Samuel Alito, speaking for the majority. "And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction."

The opinion states that the books present the LGBTQ+ community in a positive light – and that is a problem for religious parents. Alito used one of the books, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” as an example, stating that the book’s climax, a same-sex wedding, is presented positively, which may “undermine” parents who “wish to present a different moral message to their children.”

Alito argues that parents simply want to guide the faith of their children without education undermining their religious values, and that they are not seeking to “micromanage” school curriculum.

But that’s exactly what the Court’s liberal wing says will happen.

What Does the Dissent Argue?

According to the Court’s three liberal justices, allowing children to opt-out of any lesson that conflicts with their religion would open a national floodgate that would significantly overburden schools.

“Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,” wrote Justice Sotomayor in a scathing dissent. “The harm will not be borne by educators alone: Children will suffer too. Classroom disruptions and absences may well inflict long-lasting harm on students’ learning and development.” 

Sotomayor also argued that the decision itself “threatens the very essence of a public education,” which she argues is not to reinforce any particular faith value, but to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints representative of society as a whole. “The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations.”

Back Into the Closet?

Many legal scholars agree that the judgment is so broad it could unwittingly extend far beyond the original LGBTQ+ themes that were initially objected to, and anything that may conflict with faith-based values could now require an opt-out. 

That includes everything from stories featuring witches and wizards in language arts, to instructions on evolution in biology, to yoga in physical education. Even mentioning women in the workforce – which some Christian sects say is in direct conflict with the Bible – could require an opt-out option.

LGBTQ+ rights advocates fear that in an effort to avoid administrative overburdens, schools may drop LGBTQ+ content from their curriculum altogether. 

"Everyone is going to object to anything now," says University of Maryland education history professor Campbell Scribner. "And why wouldn’t they?”

Critics of the ruling worry about a future where LGBTQ+ representation disappears from public spaces entirely. The author of Uncle Bobby's Wedding voiced her concerns when reacting to the court's decision:

Unless they have an Uncle Bobby of their own, children may not know he exists at all. 

What do you make of the ruling? Should parents have the final say on kids and LGBTQ+ education, or is this an overreach?