Supreme Court Backs Parental Rights in Landmark Ruling on LGBTQ+ Curriculum in Public Schools

(ZENIT News / Washington, 06.30.2025).- In a decision that will reverberate across the nation’s education system, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 27 in favor of a group of parents seeking to shield their children from mandatory exposure to LGBTQ+-themed lessons in public elementary schools. The 6–3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor affirms a preliminary injunction allowing parents to exempt their children from lessons they claim contradict their deeply held religious beliefs.

The case emerged from Montgomery County, Maryland, where public schools had implemented a mandatory reading list featuring LGBTQ+ themes for students as young as five. Titles included stories about same-sex marriage, transgender identities, and queer historical figures. Initially, the school district allowed families to opt out, but that policy was reversed, triggering legal action from a diverse coalition of Christian and Muslim parents.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito underscored that “a government cannot condition access to public education on the surrender of religious conviction.” He emphasized that the constitutional right to free exercise of religion includes a parental role in shaping a child’s moral and spiritual development, even within public institutions.

While the ruling doesn’t ban LGBTQ+ materials from classrooms, it does prevent schools from forcing exposure to such content without offering religious opt-outs—a principle Alito called essential to maintaining the constitutional balance between public education and religious freedom.

“The Constitution protects not just belief but religious practice,” Alito wrote. “That practice often includes a parent’s right to instruct their child in accordance with faith.”

Opponents of the ruling, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in dissent, warned that the decision could lead to chaos in classrooms. “Public schools are not just venues for academic learning,” she argued. “They are crucibles of pluralism—places where children encounter ideas different from those at home.” She cautioned that requiring schools to offer exemptions for any lesson that offends religious sensibilities would erode public education’s purpose.

But the majority dismissed such fears, distinguishing between incidental exposure to differing views and instruction that parents claim is normative and doctrinal. The disputed materials were not simply informative, the court noted—they celebrated specific values that, for some families, directly conflict with religious teachings.

Among the books at the center of the dispute were Pride Puppy, which introduces pre-K students to concepts like drag queens and gender fluidity, and Born Ready, a children’s book promoting transgender identity. The parents argued that this was not education, but cultural indoctrination, and that it infringed on their ability to instill their own beliefs.

The court’s ruling doesn’t end the case, but it sends it back to lower courts with strong guidance that religious concerns deserve serious constitutional consideration.

Legal scholars say the decision represents a broader shift in the Court’s approach to religious liberty, especially in the context of education. In recent years, the justices have increasingly favored parents and religious institutions in cases involving curriculum disputes, school choice, and religious expression in public settings.

The implications go beyond Maryland. With many states embroiled in debates over how gender, sexuality, and race are taught in public schools, this ruling gives legal teeth to parental demands for greater oversight of classroom content.

The decision was praised by religious liberty groups and conservative advocacy organizations, who hailed it as a reaffirmation of parental authority. “The Supreme Court has spoken clearly,” said Eric Baxter of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the parents. “Parents—not bureaucrats—decide what values their children learn.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also applauded the outcome. Bishop Kevin Rhoades, head of the bishops’ religious freedom committee, said, “Public schools must respect all families. When controversial issues arise, parents have the right to guide their children’s formation.”

For now, the Court’s message is clear: constitutional rights do not end at the schoolhouse gate, and parents—regardless of religion—retain authority over their children’s moral formation, even when they attend public schools.

As the case returns to the lower courts, its outcome may well set the tone for future clashes between parental rights and educational policy in an increasingly divided cultural landscape.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.