Supreme Court Seems to Support Opt-Out Choice for LGBTQ Content in Schools
A Maryland board of education is facing legal action from parents who are challenging the board's decision to not permit them to withdraw their elementary school children from classes that include LGBTQ+ themes.
TroibNews 
A majority of justices appeared to support the idea that public schools should allow parents to opt their children out of certain storybook readings as the Supreme Court deliberated on a case involving religious freedom.
A group of parents from Muslim, Christian, and Jewish backgrounds filed a lawsuit against the Montgomery County Board of Education, which governs Maryland’s largest school district, after the board denied requests for parents to withdraw their elementary school children from lessons addressing LGBTQ+ themes.
The plaintiffs contend that the lack of advance notice and the inability to opt out of specific lessons infringe on their First Amendment rights related to religious expression. Originally, the board permitted parents to opt out, but its subsequent policy change triggered legal action.
During the proceedings, parents’ attorney Eric Baxter and Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, representing the Trump administration, argued that the current situation pressures parents to alter their religious beliefs to access public education. Baxter described the lessons as “indoctrination” and urged the justices to support the parents in reinstating opt-out notices and requiring advance notification.
“Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters," Baxter stated, though he later clarified that the case does not oppose the availability of the books in schools.
The justices focused on whether mandating student participation in lessons with LGBTQ+ content could be seen as coercive. They also pondered if specific ages or subjects should warrant opt-out notices.
Conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, concentrated on the coercion argument raised by the parents and seemed to lean toward their perspective.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Alito engaged in a discussion regarding the book “Uncle Bobby's Wedding,” which features a same-sex couple's marriage. Baxter informed the court that the book conveys more than just exposure to same-sex couples.
“It has a clear moral message,” Alito remarked, indicating he had read the book. “And it may be a good message. It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with. … I don't think anybody can read that and say, ‘Well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men.’”
As Alito spoke, Sotomayor interjected, attempting to counter his assertion that the book presents a discernible viewpoint. Chief Justice John Roberts intervened, advising Sotomayor to wait until Alito completed his remarks.
“Haven't we made very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?” Sotomayor asked Baxter, pointing out that none of the characters in “Uncle Bobby's Wedding” engaged in any physical displays of affection. “That mere exposure to that is coercion?”
Alongside Sotomayor, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Baxter for clarity on when an opt-out notice would be necessary and seemed doubtful that the books in question represented coercion.
Alan Schoenfeld, arguing on behalf of Montgomery County Public Schools, stated that the board rescinded the opt-out notice policy because it became unmanageable. He contended that a child's exposure to lessons opposed by their parents on religious grounds does not infringe upon the parents’ free exercise of religion, as there is no evidence of coercion.
“This Court has made clear that exposure to offensive ideas does not burden free exercise,” Schoenfeld stated. “MCPS makes explicitly clear students do not need to accept, agree with or affirm anything they read or anything about their classmates’ beliefs or lives.”
Alito challenged Schoenfeld on the feasibility of allowing opt-outs.
“The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum,” Alito remarked. “They’re just saying, ‘Look, we want out.’ Why isn't that feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?”
Schoenfeld explained that “there's a limited universe” of curriculum from which students can opt out, emphasizing that MCPS’s “family life and healthy sexuality curriculum stands alone.” He also mentioned that principals had reported high absenteeism related to opt-outs, with many requests not stemming from religious objections. Additionally, Schoenfeld pointed out that there is a review process for curriculum adoption and materials.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed a personal perspective, highlighting his long-standing ties to the county and conveying disappointment that the conflict reached the Supreme Court rather than being resolved locally.
“I guess I am a bit mystified, as a life-long resident of the county, how it came to this,” he observed.
Drawing on his local knowledge, Kavanaugh suggested that the school system could have been more accommodating to religious students and families.
“Maryland was founded on religious liberty and religious tolerance," Kavanaugh stated. “Montgomery County has been a beacon of that religious liberty for all these years with a strong Catholic population, a substantial Jewish population, lots of different Protestants. You drive down Connecticut Avenue or Georgia Avenue and you see religious building after religious building. I guess I'm surprised, given that, this is the hill we're going to die on.”
The school board had previously indicated its efforts to diversify portrayals of characters, families, and historical figures from various cultural, racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. It also sanctioned certain books featuring LGBTQ+ characters for language-arts curriculum.
While the school board initially allowed opt-outs, it concluded that managing these requests became logistically challenging and disruptive—especially when opting out was not limited to specific classes featuring the themes. Nevertheless, it continues to permit parents to opt their children out of some types of instruction, such as state-mandated sex education, and events like Valentine’s Day or Halloween parties.
Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed concern that this approach hinted at discrimination against religious families, as their requests to withdraw from using gender-themed children’s books were denied. He also noted that comments from some school board members suggested a bias against the religious parents.
Schoenfeld acknowledged certain “intemperate statements” from individuals but maintained that these comments were irrelevant to the legal arguments at hand.
Jackson presented various scenarios that could complicate a school district's ability to offer advance notice, including instances where an LGBTQ+ parent or teacher discusses their family or a student group displays LGBTQ+ posters. She suggested that allowing opt-outs for every potential interaction would be impractical.
“This is not just about books,” Jackson asserted. “This is about exposure to people of different sexual orientations and the sincerely held objection that children shouldn't be exposed to this.”
Camille Lefevre for TROIB News
A group of parents from Muslim, Christian, and Jewish backgrounds filed a lawsuit against the Montgomery County Board of Education, which governs Maryland’s largest school district, after the board denied requests for parents to withdraw their elementary school children from lessons addressing LGBTQ+ themes.
The plaintiffs contend that the lack of advance notice and the inability to opt out of specific lessons infringe on their First Amendment rights related to religious expression. Originally, the board permitted parents to opt out, but its subsequent policy change triggered legal action.
During the proceedings, parents’ attorney Eric Baxter and Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, representing the Trump administration, argued that the current situation pressures parents to alter their religious beliefs to access public education. Baxter described the lessons as “indoctrination” and urged the justices to support the parents in reinstating opt-out notices and requiring advance notification.
“Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters," Baxter stated, though he later clarified that the case does not oppose the availability of the books in schools.
The justices focused on whether mandating student participation in lessons with LGBTQ+ content could be seen as coercive. They also pondered if specific ages or subjects should warrant opt-out notices.
Conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, concentrated on the coercion argument raised by the parents and seemed to lean toward their perspective.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Alito engaged in a discussion regarding the book “Uncle Bobby's Wedding,” which features a same-sex couple's marriage. Baxter informed the court that the book conveys more than just exposure to same-sex couples.
“It has a clear moral message,” Alito remarked, indicating he had read the book. “And it may be a good message. It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with. … I don't think anybody can read that and say, ‘Well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men.’”
As Alito spoke, Sotomayor interjected, attempting to counter his assertion that the book presents a discernible viewpoint. Chief Justice John Roberts intervened, advising Sotomayor to wait until Alito completed his remarks.
“Haven't we made very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?” Sotomayor asked Baxter, pointing out that none of the characters in “Uncle Bobby's Wedding” engaged in any physical displays of affection. “That mere exposure to that is coercion?”
Alongside Sotomayor, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Baxter for clarity on when an opt-out notice would be necessary and seemed doubtful that the books in question represented coercion.
Alan Schoenfeld, arguing on behalf of Montgomery County Public Schools, stated that the board rescinded the opt-out notice policy because it became unmanageable. He contended that a child's exposure to lessons opposed by their parents on religious grounds does not infringe upon the parents’ free exercise of religion, as there is no evidence of coercion.
“This Court has made clear that exposure to offensive ideas does not burden free exercise,” Schoenfeld stated. “MCPS makes explicitly clear students do not need to accept, agree with or affirm anything they read or anything about their classmates’ beliefs or lives.”
Alito challenged Schoenfeld on the feasibility of allowing opt-outs.
“The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum,” Alito remarked. “They’re just saying, ‘Look, we want out.’ Why isn't that feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?”
Schoenfeld explained that “there's a limited universe” of curriculum from which students can opt out, emphasizing that MCPS’s “family life and healthy sexuality curriculum stands alone.” He also mentioned that principals had reported high absenteeism related to opt-outs, with many requests not stemming from religious objections. Additionally, Schoenfeld pointed out that there is a review process for curriculum adoption and materials.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed a personal perspective, highlighting his long-standing ties to the county and conveying disappointment that the conflict reached the Supreme Court rather than being resolved locally.
“I guess I am a bit mystified, as a life-long resident of the county, how it came to this,” he observed.
Drawing on his local knowledge, Kavanaugh suggested that the school system could have been more accommodating to religious students and families.
“Maryland was founded on religious liberty and religious tolerance," Kavanaugh stated. “Montgomery County has been a beacon of that religious liberty for all these years with a strong Catholic population, a substantial Jewish population, lots of different Protestants. You drive down Connecticut Avenue or Georgia Avenue and you see religious building after religious building. I guess I'm surprised, given that, this is the hill we're going to die on.”
The school board had previously indicated its efforts to diversify portrayals of characters, families, and historical figures from various cultural, racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. It also sanctioned certain books featuring LGBTQ+ characters for language-arts curriculum.
While the school board initially allowed opt-outs, it concluded that managing these requests became logistically challenging and disruptive—especially when opting out was not limited to specific classes featuring the themes. Nevertheless, it continues to permit parents to opt their children out of some types of instruction, such as state-mandated sex education, and events like Valentine’s Day or Halloween parties.
Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed concern that this approach hinted at discrimination against religious families, as their requests to withdraw from using gender-themed children’s books were denied. He also noted that comments from some school board members suggested a bias against the religious parents.
Schoenfeld acknowledged certain “intemperate statements” from individuals but maintained that these comments were irrelevant to the legal arguments at hand.
Jackson presented various scenarios that could complicate a school district's ability to offer advance notice, including instances where an LGBTQ+ parent or teacher discusses their family or a student group displays LGBTQ+ posters. She suggested that allowing opt-outs for every potential interaction would be impractical.
“This is not just about books,” Jackson asserted. “This is about exposure to people of different sexual orientations and the sincerely held objection that children shouldn't be exposed to this.”
Camille Lefevre for TROIB News
