In this case, the court considered this issue: Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?

The case was decided on June 27, 2025

The Supreme Court held that Parents challenging the Montgomery County Board of Education’s introduction of certain “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with the Board’s decision to withhold parental opt outs from that instruction, are entitled to a preliminary injunction because the policy poses “a very real threat of undermining” the religious beliefs and practices parents wish to instill. Justice Samuel Alito authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.

The Montgomery County Board of Education introduced LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks into its elementary school English curriculum and initially allowed parents to opt their children out of related instruction. When the Board rescinded this opt-out policy, citing administrative burdens and concerns about classroom disruption, parents from diverse religious backgrounds sued. The Court applied the principle from Wisconsin v Yoder that government policies violate parents’ free exercise rights when they “substantially interfere with the religious development” of children by placing them in environments “hostile” to their religious beliefs with “pressure to conform” to contrary viewpoints. The storybooks present normative messages about same-sex marriage and gender identity that directly contradict the religious teachings these parents seek to instill. Combined with teacher guidance that encourages specific responses reinforcing these viewpoints, the curriculum creates precisely the kind of “objective danger to the free exercise of religion” that the First Amendment prohibits.

When a burden on religious exercise matches the character found in Yoder—substantial interference with parents’ ability to guide their children's religious development—strict scrutiny applies regardless of whether the policy is neutral and generally applicable. While schools have a compelling interest in maintaining an undisrupted educational environment, the Board’s no-opt-out policy fails narrow tailoring. The Board continues to permit opt-outs for other curricula, including family life and human sexuality instruction, and provides parallel programming for other student populations. The Board cannot create administrative burdens through its own curriculum design choices and then cite those burdens to justify denying constitutional rights. The availability of private school or homeschooling does not cure the constitutional violation, as public education is a public benefit that cannot be conditioned on surrendering religious exercise rights.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion arguing that the Board’s policy represents an impermissible attempt at ideological conformity comparable to that rejected in Pierce v Society of Sisters, and that sex education for young children lacks the historical pedigree necessary to override parents’ fundamental rights.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that mere exposure to ideas conflicting with religious beliefs does not constitute a Free Exercise violation under established precedent, and warning that the majority’s ruling will create administrative chaos for public schools while effectively granting religious parents a veto over curricular decisions traditionally left to democratically elected school boards.

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.