Supreme Court Rules for Parents’ Right to Opt Children Out of LGBT-Themed Lessons

In a decision that local conservatives are hailing as dealing a crushing blow to LBGTQ indoctrination efforts in California, the United States Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Maryland public school parents can opt their kids out of lessons with LGBT-themed books that conflict with their religious beliefs.

By a vote of 6-3 split along ideological lines, the Justices overturned a lower court ruling that said the curriculum was acceptable because parents were not coerced into changing their religious practices because of it.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said not allowing parents to opt-out of the  curriculum “places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion.”

Alito said government officials violate the religious rights of parents by forcing them to “submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.”

He argued that the Montgomery County, Maryland School Board’s “introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks – combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs – substantially interferes with the religious development of their children.”

Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents sued the School Board because it would not allow them to opt-out of the LGBTQ-themed curriculum that was adopted in 2022.

The books at issue all seemed to glorify transgenderism and homosexuality in a manner that suggested any kind of criticism would be unconscionable. One book, Pride Puppy, a picture book for three and four year olds, told kids to look for items they could find at a gay pride parade, such as underwear, lip rings and drag kings.

Another book, for K-5 students says “pronouns can change like the weather” and tells the story of someone who uses they/them pronouns.

“Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative,” Alito wrote. “They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

Mark Trammell, CEO of the Center for American Liberty, founded by Harmeet Dhillon, told the California Globe that the Supreme Court ruling is going to boost parental rights nationwide. “This  is a terrific decision and will have national implications,” he emailed.”The decision affirms that parental rights extend into the classroom and schools have to allow parents to opt their kids out of lessons that violate sincerely held religious beliefs. Nationally, there is a trend of schools keeping secrets from parents. Schools are facilitating gender transitions, socially, without parental notification or consent. They’re replacing classical literature with totally inappropriate sexually explicit books. And in at least one state, schools are paying lgbt resource centers to “counsel” kids through gender transitions without parental notification or consent. Today’s decision doesn’t resolve all of these issues, but I think it is still very important. By affirming parents have opt-out rights, I think the decision assumes that parents have the right to know what is going on in the classroom, which is a right they are being denied at an alarming rate. The Center for American Liberty is currently litigating these issues on behalf of parents in multiple jurisdictions. Today’s decision from the Supreme Court gives me renewed hope.”

The Supreme Court ruling should portend a seismic shift for California. Under the California Education Code parents are expressly precluded from opting their kids out of lessons on gender identity and sexual orientation unless they are part of sex education classes.

But the Supreme Court ruling now  gives parents in California and across the country the right to opt-out of any lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity they find religiously objectionable. Hailing a victory for parents, California Family Council president Jonathan Keller said in a statement that, ““This is the most significant affirmation of parental rights we’ve seen from the Court in a generation. For too long, California schools have treated parents as obstacles instead of partners. Today’s decision sends an unmistakable message: moms and dads, not bureaucrats or activist teachers, have the final say in how their children are formed on matters of faith, sexuality, and morality.”

The California Family Council said that the “ruling comes as a direct rebuke to the kind of LGBTQ-centered curriculum that has flooded California public schools in recent years, often beginning as early as kindergarten. Far from neutral, California’s content doesn’t merely acknowledge the existence of individuals who identify as LGBTQ. It teaches children to admire, celebrate, and emulate LGBTQ figures and lifestyles—while subtly casting those who disagree in a negative, even hateful light. Though the case originated in Maryland, the Court’s decision will have profound national implications—and none more significant than in California. School districts in the Golden State have led the nation in implementing LGBTQ-centered content without accommodation for dissenting families. That ends today.”

Indeed, the Supreme Court case mirrors one that National Center for Law and Policy president Dean Broyles and the First Liberty Institute are litigating in California. They represent religious parents who sued the Encinitas Union School District for not allowing their kids to opt- out of a class pushing gender ideology with a book about a cross-dressing boy.  In May, a federal judge ordered the District to allow the kids to opt-out of the gender ideology classes as the case proceeds. But the District appealed his decision.

Broyles told the California Globe that he expects in light of the Supreme Court ruling, he expects that the District is going to settle the case.

Broyles said in a statement about the Supreme Court ruling that, “We are grateful for this monumental victory, affirming parental right and religious freedom. Parents have the fundamental right to direct the care and education of their children, including religious instruction.  This landmark decision helps to shift the balance of power away from the state and back to families and faith communities, where it belongs. Public schools will no longer be able to secretly indoctrinate children with controversial sexual ideologies that undermine families and faith communities. This case has far-reaching implications and may effectively gut LGBTQ+ instruction in public education, which now pervades so much of the curriculum in overreaching states like California.  It should also stop the abusive practice in California public schools and elsewhere of secretly gender transitioning children behind their parents’ backs.”

So what happens next?

Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a conservative law firm in Marietta, said yesterday it has “created a free, easy-to-use legal opt-out form that parents can submit to their child’s school. This resource allows parents to formally exercise their constitutional right to opt their child out of instruction, curriculum, or discussions related to gender identity, gender theory, sexual orientation, or any LGBTQ+-themed materials that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

And Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education president Sonja Shaw called for School Districts to “revise their policies and fully comply with the Supreme Court ruling and end the practice of hiding controversial content from parents.”

In a letter to the California School Boards Association, she said they should  “Immediately revise and reissue sample board policies and administrative regulations–particularly those relating to instruction and parental rights” and “Ensure that these model policies include mandatory parental notification and opt-out provisions for instructional materials involving sexuality, gender identity and any related ideological content.”

The California School Board Association did not respond to a request for comment.