The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday, June 27, that a Maryland school district’s decision to mandate instruction using LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks, without offering notice or opt-outs to parents, violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The case sets a new precedent that strengthens parental rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children in public school settings. It also imposes fresh legal responsibilities on public school districts, requiring them to inform parents of certain lessons in advance and offer opt-out options.

The 6-3 decision reversed the Fourth Circuit and granted a preliminary injunction, holding that the Maryland school district must provide advance notice and allow parents to excuse their children from classroom instruction involving the contested materials.

For K-12 school districts, this decision marks a pivotal shift in the constitutional boundaries governing curriculum design and parental rights. Parents and students no longer must show that a school coerced them into conduct against their religious beliefs. Under Friday’s decision, mere exposure to instructional content hostile to a family’s religion may violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious free exercise — unless the schools give parents notice and a chance to opt out of particular lessons.

The Facts Behind the Case

The Maryland school district introduced a series of LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks into its K-5 English language arts curriculum, with guidance for teachers to use the materials in read-alouds, book circles, and classroom discussions. Initially, parents could opt their children out of instruction involving these books. However, citing administrative burden and potential stigma for students who opted out, the district later rescinded that policy.

A diverse group of religious parents filed suit, arguing that mandatory exposure to these texts — many of which included affirming messages about same-sex marriage and gender fluidity — substantially interfered with their right to raise their children in accordance with their faith. They sought an injunction against the district’s no-opt-out policy.

The Court’s Reasoning

In a majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the court found that the district’s no-opt-out policy imposed a constitutionally impermissible burden on the free exercise of religion. Expanding on the court’s precedent in a 1972 decision also regarding free exercise of religion, the court emphasized that:

• The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause protects parents' right to raise and educate their children in their religious beliefs. That right extends into the public school setting.
   
• Public education cannot be conditioned on the willingness of a parent to relinquish religious instruction or suffer interference with their children’s religious development.
   
• The Free Exercise Clause protects not just against overt coercion, but also against more subtle forms of interference with religious development.
   
• Even if classroom instruction does not formally compel students to affirm particular views or engage in prescribed activity, simply exposing students to certain viewpoints within classroom discussion can create constitutionally significant pressure to conform to ideas contrary to religious doctrine.
   
• That pressure, combined with the lack of an opt-out policy, burdens parents' right to the free of exercise of religion and, therefore, must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny to pass constitutional muster.

Notably, the court rejected the idea that parents must wait until harm is realized to bring suit, emphasizing that the likelihood of religious harm was sufficient to warrant injunctive relief. And even though this case centered on LGBTQ+-related material, the court’s opinion would likely reach any instructional content that is, in Alito’s words, "hostile to religious viewpoints" and "designed to impose upon students a pressure to conform."

Key Takeaways for K-12 School Districts

• Opt-Out Obligations Are Likely Constitutionally Required: When instructional materials convey normative messages that conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs, school districts must consider religious accommodations — especially in the elementary grades. Districts should proactively adopt policies that permit parental opt-outs from any lesson that features content that might substantially interfere with the religious development of a child.
   
• Notice Is Critical: Districts should ensure parents receive timely notice when controversial materials are used in instruction, enabling informed decision-making about potential opt-out requests. Given the challenge posed by identifying what instructional materials might be hostile to a family’s religious beliefs, the best practice may be to give parents advance notice of all instructional texts to be used throughout a school year and allow them a reasonable time to opt out.
   
• Prepare for Heightened Scrutiny: Courts are signaling a willingness to scrutinize inclusive curriculum policies through a First Amendment lens. Districts should document educational justifications for contested materials and consider narrowly tailoring policies where feasible. Districts, especially those in religious and politically diverse communities, should also budget for an increase in free exercise litigation.

The court’s decision is likely to have ripple effects across states. School leaders, superintendents, and legal counsel should proactively review curriculum policies and religious accommodation procedures in light of this ruling.

For more information, please contact us or your regular Parker Poe contact. Click here to subscribe to our latest alerts and insights.