Catholic families won a significant religious freedom victory Friday as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Maryland public schools must allow parents to excuse their children from classroom instruction featuring LGBTQ-themed storybooks, when objecting on religious grounds.
The 6–3 decision marks a continuation of the Court’s broader affirmation of religious liberty in public life, even amid competing cultural pressures. At issue was a curriculum in Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland’s largest district, that introduced books such as Pride Puppy, Love, Violet, and Born Ready into language-arts lessons from pre-K through 5th grade.
Initially, the district allowed parents to opt out of these lessons, but later rescinded that right, claiming that doing so led to absenteeism and “exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation,” according to school officials.
In response, parents from various faith backgrounds filed suit, stating that the books “promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation.” As they made clear in court, they did not seek to ban the books from libraries or classrooms—only to protect their own children from being required to engage with content that conflicts with their religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court sided with the parents. Lower courts had ruled against them, with Judge G. Steven Agee writing that “simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires.” But in overturning those decisions, the Court made clear that public schools must respect the First Amendment rights of religious families.
This case—Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297—builds on a string of recent Supreme Court rulings favoring religious expression, including cases involving prayer in public schools, service providers declining to promote same-sex weddings, and faith-based foster agencies.
The school board had argued that the storybooks were not textbooks and did not formally “instruct about gender or sexuality,” but merely featured “characters who are L.G.B.T.Q. or have L.G.B.T.Q. family members,” according to its brief.
Yet for Catholic parents, the concern lies not just in content, but in formation. Church teaching affirms the “fundamental right and duty of parents to educate their children” (CCC 2221), especially in moral and spiritual matters. This ruling is a strong affirmation of that duty.
As Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. noted in dissent from the lower court, “They do not seek to ban [the books]. Instead, they only want to opt their children out of the instruction involving such texts.” That modest request now has the full weight of the Supreme Court behind it.
