The Supreme Court just handed a win to common sense—and to parents who’d like a little say in what their kids are reading in school.
Breitbart reported that in a 6-3 ruling, the high court sided with a group of Maryland parents who argued that the Montgomery County School Board violated their right to free religious exercise by removing opt-out provisions for controversial LGBTQ-themed curriculum offered to young children.
In 2022, officials in Montgomery County adopted new “inclusivity” books targeted at students from kindergarten through fifth grade, touting them as tools for fostering tolerance and understanding among children.
That all might sound commendable—until parents found out they’d lost the ability to be notified or shield their kids from storybooks that cover gender transitions, pride parades, and preferred pronouns, among other topics.
These books include titles like The Pride Puppy and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, with content aimed at shaping how five- to eleven-year-olds think about sex and identity—before many of them can even spell either word.
Understandably, a coalition of concerned parents—representing a range of religious faiths—filed suit, arguing that their constitutional rights were pushed aside in the name of progressivism.
Their complaint wasn’t about banning books, silencing voices, or even objecting to LGBTQ+ families being acknowledged; it was about their right to parent. Specifically, to decide when and how to talk to their kids about topics that clash with the tenets of their faith.
On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the school district’s policy ran afoul of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and imposed an unconstitutional burden on religious families.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing the majority opinion, stated unequivocally that the parents are “likely to succeed” in their claims and should receive relief while the case moves forward through the courts.
Alito didn’t mince words: placing parents in a position where their only options were to either absorb teachings contrary to their spiritual beliefs or foot the bill for private schooling was no choice at all—it was coercion.
He pointed out the psychological toll such materials could take on impressionable kids whose families are trying to instill different values at home, describing the books as a “threat” to those beliefs and an “imposition” of competing worldviews.
Unsurprisingly, the court’s three liberal justices dissented, continuing to toe the line that "inclusivity" means everyone should believe the same things—or at the very least, stay silent when they don’t.
But Alito wasn’t having it, warning that “even temporary” violations of First Amendment freedoms amount to “irreparable harm,” a line that rings especially true as activist school boards push further into ideological waters.
He also included portions from the children’s books in question—passages apparently deemed so age-appropriate by the school board that parents weren’t even allowed to know their kids would be exposed to them.
This decision isn’t a sweeping cultural reversal, but it’s a reminder that the Constitution still means something—even when it’s inconvenient for progressive school districts looking to reshape young minds.
While some may cheer a system where bureaucrats override family and faith, the Court just sent a clear message: parents don’t surrender their rights at the schoolhouse gate.