Supreme Court appears inclined to rule for parents seeking opt-outs for LGBTQ-themed instruction
The Supreme Court appeared inclined Tuesday to side with a group of parents objecting to their school district including books with LGBTQ themes in its elementary school curriculum.
Across more than two hours of arguments, a majority of the justices sympathized with the Montgomery County, Md., parents' claims that the lack of an opt-out option substantially burdens their First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion.
'What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?' conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked.
Montgomery County, which serves more than 160,000 students in the Maryland suburbs of the nation's capital and is one of the country's most diverse school districts, began introducing LGBTQ-inclusive books in its elementary school language arts curriculum at the start of the 2022-23 school year.
The books include titles like 'Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,' which is centered on the author's transgender son, and 'Love, Violet,' which tells the story of two young girls in a same-sex romance.
'The book has a clear message,' Alito said of one of the books, indicating he had read several of the titles.
'And a lot of people think it is a good message. And maybe it is a good message, but it is a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with,' he added.
Initially, the school board allowed parents to opt out their children, but the county rescinded the option beginning the following school year.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly questioned why the school district was refusing the option and walked through Montgomery County's history of being a 'beacon' of religious liberty.
'I guess I am a bit mystified, as a lifelong resident of the county, how it came to this,' Kavanaugh said.
As the county removed the opt-out option, an organization and three sets of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents sued, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which regularly brings religion cases before the high court.
'The First Amendment demands more,' Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, told the justices of the county's policy.
The parents argue the county's decision violates the Supreme Court's holding in a 1972 case, Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which it ruled Wisconsin couldn't require Amish children to attend public school beyond the eighth grade, because parents have the constitutional right to guide the religious future and education of their children.
But lower courts declined to put the county's policy on hold as the case proceeded, saying the plaintiffs didn't show their religious exercise was substantially burdened. The parents appealed to the Supreme Court after a divided panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their bid.
Though a majority of the court's conservatives seemed ready to rule with the parents, the justices explored several different legal avenues for how to get there.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, two of President Trump's appointees to the court, repeatedly questioned if they should consider whether the county's policy demonstrates hostility against certain practices that amounts to religious discrimination.
Meanwhile, the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line, peppering hypotheticals about a gay teacher who has a photo of their same-sex spouse on their desk or a teacher who calls a transgender student by their preferred pronouns.
'It'll be like opt-outs for everyone,' Justice Elena Kagan said.
Outside the courthouse, dozens of protesters gathered at side-by-side competing rallies.
The group supporting the county read some of the books used by the school district, carrying signs with messages such as 'Our Love is Louder.' The competing group included demonstrators who held signs displaying slogans like 'Let Kids be Kids' and 'Let Parents Parent.'
The case is the first of two this session in which the justices will delve into religion and schools. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the bid in Oklahoma to create the nation's first religious public charter school.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
New Jersey AG ‘confident' in battle against Trump birthright citizenship order
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, one of the plaintiffs in a 22-state lawsuit against President Trump's executive order curbing birthright citizenship, said Saturday he was 'confident' the order could still be blocked nationwide following a Friday Supreme Court ruling that broadly restricted the ability of the court system to halt the president's policies. 'There's a whole range of administrative challenges that would make this completely unworkable, which is why I'm confident we'll get the nationwide relief we've sought when we go back to the lower courts,' Platkin said in an MSNBC appearance. The nation's highest court ruled Friday that Trump's executive order could be partially enforced because lower-court judges had exceeded their authority in issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the policy. The ruling did not address the underlying constitutionality of Trump's order, but still drastically limited a judicial tool that has been used for decades, including to block federal policies from multiple presidential administrations. New Jersey is one of 22 Democratic-led states, along with a group of expectant mothers and immigration organizations, that sued to block the executive order almost immediately after it was issued in January. The injunctions issued by three federal judges in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts in the ensuing months granted relief not just to those plaintiffs, but everyone in the country. That move, the Supreme Court majority said Friday, was unconstitutional. Instead, injunctions should be narrowly tailored to provide 'complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.' The lower courts will now get the first attempt at tailoring injunctions to comply with the ruling. On MSNBC, Platkin contended that 'complete relief' to the states harmed by the executive order would still involve blocking the executive order across the country. 'It would be impossible to administer a system of citizenship based on which state you live in,' he said. The suits of the non-state plaintiffs, meanwhile, were quickly refashioned into class-action lawsuits, a legal route that Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted could provide broader relief against the birthright citizenship order in her majority opinion. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days while the courts and parties sort out the next steps.


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
CNN's Scott Jennings rips liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan for nationwide injunction hypocrisy: ‘Some of these folks really are hacks'
New York Post may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. Conservative CNN pundit Scott Jennings ripped liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kegan as a partisan hack for opposing the elimination of nationwide injunctions – despite wanting to end the practice when President Biden was in power. Jennings called out Kagan – one of three dissenters in Friday's historic Supreme Court ruling that prevents district court judges from interfering with a president's agenda – for previously and publicly slamming the widespread abuse of nationwide injunctions during a Democratic presidency. 'I was trying to sort out my feelings on this matter, and I came up with a quote from a very smart lawyer, and I just want to quote it, because I think she was right when she said it,' the political commentator quipped on CNN's 'Saturday Morning Table for Five.' Advertisement 3 Scott Jennings on CNN discussing a Supreme Court decision. mediaite ''It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks.' Justice Elena Kagan in 2022 said that, of course, when we had a democratic president. Now she voted against the decision on Friday. 'Just goes to show you that some of these folks really are hacks.' The lefty justice made the comment at a Northwestern University law school talk three years ago. Advertisement 3 CNN's 'Table for Five' panel discussion. mediaite Does anyone remember Justice Kagan being against nationwide injunctions when we had a DEMOCRAT President? Pepperidge Farms remembers. — Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) June 28, 2025 Kagan told the audience that 'It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.' Advertisement Jennings called the 6-3 ruling a 'great day' for Trump after host Abby Phillips remarked how nationwide injunctions have 'been sort of the bane of existence' for both Democratic and Republican presidents. 3 President Trump at a White House press conference. / MEGA 'I'm glad they went ahead and fixed it because it's not right that one of these individual district court judges can act like a king or a monarch and stop the elected president from acting,' Jennings added. Advertisement President Trump has been slapped with at least 25 national injunctions on everything from spending reforms to education policy and deportation policies in the first five months of his second term in the White House. Kagan's liberal peers, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, also voted along ideological lines to reject the high court decision.


Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Weekend Law: Final SCOTUS Decisions & Dogs Are Family
Constitutional law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, discusses the Supreme Court limiting judge's use of nationwide injunctions. First Amendment law expert Caroline Mala Corbin, discusses the Supreme Court bolstering the rights of religious parents. Christopher Berry, the Executive Director of the Nonhuman Rights Project, discusses a New York judge ruling that dogs are part of the family. June Grasso hosts.