U.S. Supreme Court backs parents opting children out of LGBTQ-themed books

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday (June 27, 2025) ruled 6-3 to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons at public schools, a move critics warn threatens the future of secular education by opening the door to broad religious objections.

The Justices reviewed an appeal brought by Christian and Muslim parents against a Maryland public school district that, in 2022, added books tackling prejudice and exploring gender identity to its elementary curriculum.

U.S. President Donald Trump, who has made fighting “woke ideology” a hallmark of his second term, hailed the outcome as a “great ruling for parents”.

“They lost control of the schools and they lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents,” he said at a White House press conference.

The Court found that the Montgomery County parents were likely to prevail in their claim that blocking them from opting out “unconstitutionally burdens” their religious freedom.

“For many people of faith, there are few religious acts more important than the religious education of their children,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the majority.

He said the books in question “are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

Justice Alito cited specific texts, including “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding”, which celebrates gay marriage, and “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope”, about a transgender boy.

The right-wing Heritage Foundation, which authored the blueprint for Mr. Trump’s second term, also praised the ruling as “a resounding victory for parents across America, affirming their fundamental right to guide their children’s moral and religious upbringing”.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor — joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — defended public schools as places where “children of all faiths and backgrounds” gain exposure to a pluralistic society.

“That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality,” she wrote. “Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.”

She warned of a slippery slope: “Books expressing implicit support for patriotism, women’s rights, interfaith marriage, consumption of meat, immodest dress, and countless other topics may conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs and thus trigger stringent judicial review under the majority’s test.”

The ruling could even reopen settled legal ground on how schools teach evolution and other scientific topics, said Daniel Mach, a legal expert with the American Civil Liberties Union.

“The issue had come up many times in lower courts, including where parents claimed a religious right to opt out of biology lessons on evolution,” he told AFP. “In each of those cases, the courts rejected the claim, but now with today’s decision, the door has been bashed open to invite all manner of objections.”

Mach warned that schools may now choose to self-censor rather than navigate a patchwork of opt-outs in anticipation of lawsuits.