In a major victory for parental rights and religious freedom, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday in favor of Maryland parents who sought to remove their children from elementary school lessons that featured LGBT-themed storybooks. The 6–3 decision, led by Justice Samuel Alito, struck down a policy from the Montgomery County Board of Education that had barred families from opting out of the controversial curriculum.

The Court’s ruling is a direct rebuke to left-wing school boards and progressive ideologues who, under the guise of “inclusion,” have attempted to override parental authority and inject radical gender ideology into public classrooms.

Justice Alito pulled no punches in his majority opinion, noting that the LGBT-themed books introduced in 2022 were designed not merely to educate, but to “disrupt” traditional views of sexuality and gender.

Among the books used were “Prince & Knight” and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding”, the latter of which tells the story of a young girl whose uncle is marrying another man. One line reads, “When grown-up people love each other that much, sometimes they get married.”

Initially, the district allowed parents to opt their children out. But when opt-out requests surged, administrators reversed course, claiming they could no longer honor the requests without “disrupting” classroom management.

That prompted a lawsuit from a diverse group of parents — including Christians and Muslims — who said the school board's actions violated their First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion. Despite earlier rulings against the parents by lower courts, the Supreme Court saw it differently.

“These 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.”

He concluded that denying parents the ability to opt out of such lessons “places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion.”

With this ruling, the district is now barred from forcing students to attend these lessons while litigation continues.

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, accusing the majority of inventing a new constitutional right. “Casting aside a longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’ themes contrary to the religious principles that parents wish to instill in their children,” Sotomayor complained.

One of the more eye-opening moments in oral arguments came from Justice Neil Gorsuch, who pressed the school district’s attorney on a pre-K book called “Pride Puppy.”

“That’s the one where they’re supposed to look for the leather and things and bondage — things like that?” Gorsuch asked.

The district's lawyer stumbled in response, admitting the book included a drag queen and other adult-themed content as part of an “optional” exercise for toddlers.

President Donald J. Trump praised the ruling, calling it a “tremendous victory for parents.”

“They lost control of the schools. They lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents,” Trump said, adding he was shocked the case had to reach the nation’s highest court to secure basic parental rights.

With this decision, the Court has not only stood for religious liberty but sent a strong message to activist educators and bureaucrats across the country: Parents — not the state — decide what values their children are taught.