The Supreme Court held Friday that a group of Maryland parents are entitled to opt their children out of school lessons that could violate their beliefs in a case centered on religious freedom.
The justices decided 6-3 along ideological lines in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can exclude their children from a Maryland public school system's lessons that contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel the material conflicts with their religious faith.
"A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. "And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents' acceptance of such instruction."
The case arose from Montgomery County Public Schools incorporating books into their preschool through 12th grade language arts curriculum a few years ago that featured "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer characters," the school district's attorneys told the Supreme Court.
PROTESTS ERUPT AS SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS CASE ON LGBT BOOKS IN SCHOOL
The attorneys said the school district did this as part of an effort to be "culturally responsive" and teach lessons that encourage "equity, respect, and civility."
The Maryland parents who sued said in their petition to the high court that the school board introduced books to their elementary school students that promoted "gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance."
The parents said the school board initially allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons involving those books but then ceased doing that.
They also said the presence of the books created "indirect pressure to forgo a religious practice," which created enough of a burden to violate their religious freedom rights.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, said exposing students to the fact that "LGBTQ people exist" does not warrant Supreme Court intervention. Sotomayor said she believed the high court's decision would open floodgates for students to opt out of a wider range of lessons.
"The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools," Sotomayor wrote. "Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools."
The parents who brought the suit span a range of religious backgrounds. Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat are Muslim, while others fall under different denominations of Christianity.
KEY SCOTUS PARENTAL RIGHTS CASES DRAW MCMAHON, MOMS FOR LIBERTY TO RALLY ON COURT STEPS
During oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned an attorney representing Montgomery County schools about whether the books simply existed in the classroom or were actively introduced to the students.
The attorney indicated that teachers gave lessons to the students involving the books in question five times during the school year.
Rosalind Hanson, a member of the conservative group Moms for Liberty, told Fox News Digital during a recent interview in front of the Supreme Court that she and other parents who helped bring the case were "not trying to change the curriculum" for parents who did support their children being exposed to the books.
"The majority of states across the country have said you can have an opt-out for these very sensitive issues and topics, especially because of the religious component, but also because of the age appropriateness," Hanson said.
Education Department Secretary Linda McMahon celebrated the ruling as a win for "parental rights" and a loss for "bureaucrats."
"Parents have the right to know what their children are learning at school and to exercise their First Amendment freedom of religion to opt out of divisive and ideological lessons that go against their families' values and beliefs," McMahon said.
