One only had to listen to the audio, or read the coverage during the arguments of Mahmoud v. Taylor to get a sense of just how the majority of SCOTUS was going to rule.

The ruling issued yesterday was a huge win for parental rights. The case before SCOTUS concerned LGBT books that were being introduced into classrooms by Montgomery County (Maryland) Public Schools, and the district’s insistence that it was too much of a burden TO THE DISTRICT to notify parents ahead of time about the curriculum, AND that parents were not allowed to opt their children out of the curriculum. This led to a religious unification among parents, who sued the school district over their policies.

Friday’s 6-3 ruling, split along ideological lines, found that Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools violated parents’ First Amendment rights to religious exercise by not giving them advanced notice or an opportunity to opt their children out of certain lessons. The school board had initially allowed parents to opt out of lessons, but the board’s policy reversal in the 2023-2024 school year sparked a legal challenge.

The school district said it had withdrawn its opt-out notice policy because it became unmanageable and resulted in reports of high absenteeism to the school board.

The decision comes after a group of Muslim, Christian and Jewish parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Education, which oversees Maryland’s largest school district, after the board refused to allow parents to pull their elementary school children from lessons with LGBTQ+ themes.

Arguments in the case against the Maryland school board focused on whether requiring students to participate in lessons including LGBTQ+ themes could constitute coercion. Justices ruled that the parents suing were entitled to a preliminary injunction while the case is ongoing because they were likely to succeed in their challenge to the board’s policies.

The high court’s conservative majority said the parents hold “sincere views on sexuality and gender which they wish to pass on to their children.” The court also rejected the school board’s argument that the lessons were used only as “exposure to objectionable ideas” because the books “unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.”

For those who missed the oral arguments back in April, the materials being used included a whole lot of LGBTQ themed children’s books – many with questionable imagery, all designed to indoctrinate young children into the school district’s belief in gender ideology.

Gorsuch was asking Alan Schoenfeld, the attorney representing Montgomery County Public Schools, about “Pride Puppy!” a 32-page book that tells the story of a family celebrating Pride Day when their dog gets lost in the parade and the effort to reunite the pup with his loved ones.

The rhyming alphabet book, which was described as “affirming and inclusive” by its publisher, allows readers to spot items starting with each of the letters of the alphabet while offering “a joyful glimpse of a Pride parade and the vibrant community that celebrates this day each year.”

The book was previously used in the district’s pre-kindergarten curriculum.

“And they’re being used in English language instruction at age 3?” Gorsuch asked.

“‘Pride Puppy!’ was the book that was used for the pre-kindergarten curriculum. That’s no longer in the curriculum,” replied Schoenfeld.

“That’s the one where they’re supposed to look for the leather and things – and bondage – things like that,” Gorsuch responded.

“It’s not bondage. It’s a woman in a leather…”

A “Sex worker?” asked Gorsuch.

“No. That’s not correct. No,” replied Schoenfeld.

“Gosh, I read it…drag queen?” said Gorsuch.

Schoenfeld said the leather is actually a woman in a leather jacket and that “one of the words is drag queen.”

The ruling, which was authored by Justice Samuel Alito, found that the parents were likely to succeed in their case asking for the restoration of the opt-out notice policy on religious freedom grounds, while also pointing out that the books used were chosen because of the district’s desire to make these subjects more “normative.”

The 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 petitioners’ children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable. The books are unmistakably normative. They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.

Take, for example, the message sent by the books concerning same-sex marriage. Many Americans “advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644, 679. That group includes each of the parents in this case. The storybooks, however, are designed to present the opposite viewpoint to young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher’s instruction. The storybooks present same-sex weddings as occasions for great celebration and suggest that the only rubric for determining whether a marriage is acceptable is whether the individuals concerned “love each other.”

The storybooks similarly convey a normative message on the subjects of sex and gender. Many Americans, like the parents in this case, believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly. The storybooks, however, suggest that it is hurtful, and perhaps even hateful, to hold the view that gender is inextricably bound with biological sex.

Like the compulsory high school education considered in Yoder, these books impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are “hostile” to their parents’ religious beliefs. Id., at 211. And the books exert upon children a psychological “pressure to conform” to their specific viewpoints. Ibid. The books therefore present the same kind of “objective danger to the free exercise of religion” that the Court identified in Yoder. Id., at 218. Pp. 21–27.

The reaction from the left was as predictable as rain in Seattle. The dissenting SCOTUS justices (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, during oral arguments, had said that if parents didn’t like what the public schools were doing, they could just pull their children out of those schools) were deeply upset, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing that requiring opt-outs for religious freedom would cause “chaos” and be a “burden” on public schools. Remember, the parents in Mahmoud v. Taylor were not asking for the curriculum to be changed – they were asking to have the opt-out reinstated, something which had existed until 2023. But now, a mere two years later, this is now too “burdensome” for the schools to handle.

Also upset and registering their complaints were the heads of the teachers’ unions. Becky Pringle, who heads the NEA (and only posts on Bluesky, where only the most loving and tolerant people post, ha ha ha), had this to say after the ruling was published.

Censorship! Silenced! We are The Experts™ and we know what is best for children, not these parents! Randi Weingarten of AFT was equally upset, but more regretful about the ruling because she recognizes that parents have seized back control from school districts in a way that can’t be ignored. And she respects everyone so much that she turned off replies on X, as school choice advocate Corey DeAngelis so helpfully pointed out.

If you want parents to have a say why did you turn off your replies? https://t.co/fitkFy1IN7 pic.twitter.com/Cauam0YxVK

— Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist (@DeAngelisCorey) June 27, 2025

But as the teachers’ union leaders grapple with the decision, one cannot forget the most affected, hurt, and upset of all parties involved. And that would be *checks notes* the authors and illustrators of the books brought up in Mahmoud v. Taylor, who just wanted to make the world a more inclusive place, and now they are being singled out for their love and inclusion. They wrote a press release via the PEN America group, which says they are about free expression in writing, and against “banning books” and “censorship.” In their letter, they remind everyone who the true “victims” of this ruling really are. Cue the choir: me me me MEEEE me me me!!!

As the authors and illustrators of the books named in Mahmoud v. Taylor, we believe the Supreme Court’s ruling today threatens students’ access to diverse books and undermines teachers’ efforts to create safe, inclusive classrooms. To treat children’s books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful. This decision will inevitably lead to an increasingly hostile climate for LGBTQ+ students and families, and create a less welcoming environment for all students.

We created our books for all children. We believe young people need to see themselves and families like theirs in the books they read; this is especially true for LGBTQ+ children and LGBTQ+ families. And all children need to learn how to share their classrooms and communities with people different from themselves. Books can help them understand one another and learn to treat each other with acceptance, kindness and respect.

We know there are families and educators across the country who are committed to creating inclusive classrooms that meet the needs of the diverse groups of students in their school districts. We are with them in spirit as they work to ensure that all students are seen and supported.

We will continue to support LGBTQ+ families and children everywhere and advocate for the right of all students to read freely. We strongly disagree with the Court’s decision.

To the eighteen undersigned authors and illustrators, I say – get a grip. Your books are not banned, or being censored. Believe it or not, all SCOTUS ruled was that parents could choose to take their kids out of the classroom when your books are read. If Mongtomery County Schools continue to use your books, then they will be read – but you’re giving the game away if you are bitching and moaning that without YOUR BOOKS being read to a captive audience, the classroom will become less “safe” and “inclusive.” What about being safe and inclusive for traditional Muslim, Jewish, or Christian students? I’m waiting to see the books about those faiths being read in the classroom, so those students can “see themselves and families like theirs in the books they read.” Or maybe schools should be more concerned about teaching the kids how to read in the first place, instead of shoving gender indoctrination into their faces, as Mongomery County Public Schools admits (while trying to spin their ratings on the “state report card”) that “Areas of student performance, such as literacy rates, remain “not met” as reported in the state data.”

The win for parents’ rights in Mahmoud v. Taylor should be celebrated.

Today's victory for parental and religious rights was a huge win for parents. It’s sad that a SCOTUS ruling was necessary to affirm parental rights in the classroom. pic.twitter.com/5O902R2uz9

— U.S. Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept) June 27, 2025

Despite the beliefs of the teachers’ union leaders, the students in the schools do not belong to them. Parents have now been affirmed by SCOTUS that they have the religious freedom to opt out of instruction that runs contrary to their faith. If people wish to read the books involved, they have not been banned or censored – they are still available in bookstores and libraries. But students are no longer going to be forced to listen to these books if their parents object.

Featured image via MarkThomas on Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license