Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland's largest school district, approved over 20 works of LGBT propaganda for inclusion as instructional materials in its curriculum in late 2022.

The woke district was initially willing to let parents opt their kids out of lessons incorporating the non-straight agitprop and to provide notice when radical works celebrating sex changes, Pride parades, and reality-defying pronouns such as "Pride Puppy," "Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope," and "My Rainbow" were read.

However, the district determined that the opt-outs required by state law for sex education units of health classes did not apply, as the LGBT propaganda was introduced as part of the English curriculum.

'These books impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are "hostile" to their parents' religious beliefs.'

Unwilling to surrender their children to cultural imperialists and confident that the district's policy violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion, Christian and Muslim parents represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty took the MCPS to court — not seeking to ban the books but to reclaim the right to control their kids' exposure to them.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction that would permit them to have their kids excused from instruction related to the LGBT propaganda while their lawsuit proceeds.

The high court reversed a lesser court's judgment and noted that the parents "are likely to succeed on their claim that the Board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise."

"We hold that 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 their children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable," Justice Samuel Alito noted in the opinion for the high court.

Alito emphasized in the majority opinion that storybooks targeting young children are "unmistakably normative" and "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected."

The conservative justice highlighted, for example, that one of the works of LGBT propaganda pushed in the district "does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice. Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated."

"These books carry with them 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs that the parents wish to instill in their children," continued Alito. "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."

Alito suggested further that the three dissenting liberal justices' "blinkered view" that the LGBT propaganda was merely aimed at exposing students to the message that non-straight people exist and teaching them kindness "ignores the messages that the authors plainly intended to convey" as well as the school board's stated reasons for inserting the books into the curriculum.

Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms for Liberty, was among the many parental rights activists who celebrated the ruling.

"We owe immense gratitude to the courageous parents, like Tamer Mahmoud and Rosalind Hanson, who bravely stepped forward as plaintiffs in this landmark case," said Justice. "This decision protects family values and religious freedom from ideological overreach, sending a clear warning to every public school in America: Respect the sacred, fundamental rights of parents, or face the consequences."

Anticipating that the court would side with the parents, Corey DeAngelis, a senior fellow at the American Culture Project and a visiting fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, told Blaze News previously that "a ruling in favor of families would be a landmark victory for parental rights in education" — one that would "reaffirm the Supreme Court precedent and the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children."

The Supreme Court made abundantly clear a century ago in Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary that "the child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

'It's all about indoctrination.'

According to a poll of 1,000 American adults conducted in fall 2024 by the research company Heart+Mind Strategies, 69% of Americans agree that parents are the primary educators of their children and 77% agree that parents should be able to opt out their children from curriculum on "gender" and sexuality if they believe it is not age-appropriate or if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

"A victory would put wind at the sails of the movement to secure parental rights in education. A win would embolden parents to raise the alarm when school districts trample on their rights and try to lay claim to their children's upbringing in the future," continued DeAngelis. "A win would put school districts on notice and send a nationwide signal that kids do not belong to the government."

RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front

 Blaze Media Illustration

Alvin Lui, president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit, told Blaze News, "Schools have over the last 20 years, especially in the last 10, been very aggressive in cutting parents out and not allowing them to opt out."

"Parents have had enough," added Lui.

The parental rights advocate stressed that the content at issue "has nothing to do with academics. Obviously. It has nothing to do with reading proficiency. It has nothing to do with what schools are supposed to be or what parents think schools are supposed to be. It's all about indoctrination."

The high court's ruling is a major upset for non-straight activists and their fellow travelers, including PEN America, which claimed in an amicus brief that if the petitioners prevailed, LGBT propagandists might suffer losses in sales and Montgomery County teachers might ultimately "steer clear of any lessons that include LGBTQ individuals and content rather than risk violating a court order."

RELATED: 'No b*** j** for you': State House silences Republican for reading smut Democrats fought to keep in elementary schools

  Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

Lui noted that this case serves as a "reminder of how important it is for parents to stick on offense" and to make good use of tools like opt-outs to keep ideologues in the education system on the back foot.

While evidently happy about the outcome, DeAngelis indicated there is another form of opt-out that parents should seek.

"Families should be able to opt their children out of content that conflicts with their values regardless of whether the reason has anything to do with religion. And we shouldn't stop there," said DeAngelis. "Families shouldn't only be able to opt out of specific content — they should have the power to opt out of any government school that is in fundamental misalignment with their values."

"And when they opt out, parents should be able to take their children's education tax dollars to the school that best meets their needs," added DeAngelis.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!