US Supreme Court LGBT books religion schools

Major Legal Shift Favoring Religious Freedom in Schools

The U.S. Supreme Court, led by its conservative majority, has sided with a group of parents opposing the use of LGBT+ themed books in public school curricula. The parents cited their religious beliefs as grounds for withdrawing their children from the classes in question. The decision was passed by a 6–3 vote, with conservative justices prevailing over the court’s three liberal members.

In its ruling, the Court stated that denying families the ability to opt out of these lessons amounted to a violation of their religious freedom and “substantially interferes with the religious upbringing of children.” Former President Donald Trump praised the verdict during a White House press conference, calling it “a tremendous victory for parents” and pointing to what he described as a diminishing role of families in education. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, also supported the ruling, labeling it a “resounding win for American families.”

Case Originated Over Inclusive Books in Maryland Schools

The case stemmed from Montgomery County, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C., where public schools introduced a set of books in 2022 aimed at challenging gender identity and sexual orientation stereotypes. Initially, the district intended to inform parents and allow them to opt their children out of certain lessons. However, that option was later removed, prompting several families—many identifying as Muslim or Christian—to take legal action based on First Amendment protections.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, argued that the books “promote values directly conflicting with the religious views of many families” and exert “psychological pressure” on children to accept those views. He added that the materials are “undeniably normative,” promoting one belief system while marginalizing others—a concerning trend when dealing with young, impressionable minds. For many religious households, he noted, overseeing their children’s moral and spiritual education is considered a sacred duty.

Progressive Justices Warn of Wider Implications

Dissenting from the majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced concern that the ruling could erode the role of public education as a space for children to engage with America’s cultural diversity. She warned this crucial exposure could “fade into memory” as more families withdraw their children from content that clashes with their religious views.

Daniel Mach, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), echoed these concerns. He warned the decision could set a precedent affecting other core areas of public education, such as the teaching of evolution. Mach expressed worry that this could undermine the schools’ responsibility to prepare students for life in a pluralistic society.

Supreme Court Also Expands Executive Authority

In a separate ruling that same day, the Supreme Court also curtailed the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders. The same six-to-three conservative majority concluded that such broad legal actions likely exceed the authority Congress granted to federal courts.

The decision marks another legal win for Donald Trump, whose executive orders had often faced national injunctions during his presidency. He welcomed the ruling, framing it as a chance to reinstate previously blocked initiatives—such as barring passport designation changes that don’t align with a person’s sex assigned at birth.

Legal Scholars Warn of Judicial Oversight Erosion

Although national injunctions have long drawn criticism from administrations on both sides of the political aisle, legal experts argue they’ve served as necessary checks on sweeping executive actions—particularly under Trump’s presidency.

This specific case involved an injunction that had blocked a Trump-era executive order ending birthright citizenship. The administration sought to limit the impact of legal challenges to the individual plaintiffs involved. Justice Sotomayor cautioned that the Court’s ruling jeopardizes the judiciary’s ability to protect constitutional rights, describing it as a “green light for the executive branch to sidestep constitutional safeguards.”

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer also condemned the ruling, calling it “a horrifying step toward authoritarian governance.”