In 2022, a Maryland school district approved a handful of books featuring LGBTQ+ characters for its language arts curriculum. A group of parents, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, filed a lawsuit challenging this curriculum’s inclusion of these books. The parents argue that the curriculum violates their religious freedom by exposing their children to ideas that they religiously oppose.
The lawsuit made its way to the United States Supreme Court after a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the school district. On April 9, 2025, Americans United and eleven religious and civil rights organizations filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court, in which we urged the Court to affirm that it is not a religious-freedom violation for a public school district to educate students about secular concepts that may not align with their families’ religious beliefs. Rather, the Constitutional line is crossed when the government coerces people—meaning that the government has directly or indirectly required a person to do something prohibited by their religion, or to refrain from doing something required by their religion. Our brief emphasizes that the school district has not engaged in any such coercive conduct.
Our brief further notes that it would violate the religious freedom of every parent and student if the Court accepts the Becket Fund’s rationale and requires public schools to implement an infeasible opt-out system for parents with religious objections to elements of the curriculum. School administrators will be more likely to remove any lessons, books or materials that could be challenged, resulting in public school curricula structured around the religious beliefs of a select few parents—a clear violation of all students’ and families’ religious freedom, especially for families from minority religions or who are nonreligious.
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a harmful decision that will undermine public schools’ ability to set inclusive curricula. Justice Samuel A. Alito, writing for a 6-3 majority, held that parents’ Free Exercise rights are burdened when their children are exposed to ideas that undermine “the religious beliefs that the parents wish to instill in their children.” And, going even further, Alito wrote that whenever a government action interferes with children’s religious development, that action will be subject to strict scrutiny – the highest level of judicial review, which is extremely difficult to satisfy.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that this expansion of parental opt-outs will create “chaos” in public schools and impose “inevitable chilling effects” on curricula. One possible silver lining of the ruling, however, is that it could be used to challenge religious proselytization and indoctrination in public schools.
