Curriculum Control or Constitutional Rights? Supreme Court Hears High-Stakes Case on Parental Opt-Outs
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up a pivotal case that may redefine who has ultimate authority over public school curriculum: locally elected school boards or the federal courts. At the heart of the legal debate is whether public schools must accommodate parental religious objections by allowing students to opt out of instruction involving LGBTQ+ themes.
The case originates from Montgomery County, Maryland, one of the most religiously diverse counties in the U.S., where the school board introduced five children’s storybooks featuring LGBTQ+ characters into the elementary curriculum. The goal was to promote tolerance and respect for students and families of all identities.
However, some parents objected on religious grounds. Grace Morrison, a parent of a 10-year-old child with Down syndrome, argued the material conflicted with her faith and was too developmentally complex for her daughter. Initially, the school board granted opt-outs, but they were later revoked due to logistical complications—such as the unpredictability of when and how the books might be used during regular lessons.
Represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the plaintiffs argue that the Constitution guarantees parents the right to direct their children's moral and religious upbringing and that mandatory exposure to LGBTQ+ content violates the Free Exercise Clause.
Supporters of the school board, including leading legal scholars like Yale Law professor Justin Driver and Stanford’s Eugene Volokh, argue the board acted within its authority and balanced competing views appropriately. They maintain the Court has historically deferred to school boards, unless curriculum amounts to religious coercion, which they assert is not the case here.
Public comment on the issue has been passionate. At school board meetings, large crowds gathered from both sides. One student named Nick defended the inclusive materials, saying, “We have rights, too. We deserve to have books that teach people about LGBTQ... it’s not hurting you.”
From a legal standpoint, the objecting parents are not just challenging this specific curriculum but asking the Court to establish a constitutional right to broad parental opt-outs from public school instruction based on religious beliefs. That could open the door to opt-outs from units on evolution, women’s history, and other commonly taught content that some groups find objectionable.
Opponents of opt-outs warn that allowing individual religious objections to dictate curriculum could destabilize public education, turning lessons into ideological battlegrounds and making cohesive instruction unworkable.
Significantly, the current Supreme Court leans heavily conservative, with six of the nine justices educated in private Catholic schools. The Court has increasingly emphasized free exercise of religion over separation of church and state, signaling it may side with religious plaintiffs.
If the justices rule that schools must allow religious opt-outs beyond existing policies for sex education, it could dramatically shift curriculum governance from elected school boards to the judiciary, impacting districts nationwide. For educators, this raises complex questions: How do we respect religious diversity while ensuring inclusive, comprehensive instruction for all students?
This case represents not just a culture war flashpoint but a test of public education’s foundational values—inclusion, local control, and the civic role of schools in preparing students to engage in a diverse society.
Curriculum Control or Constitutional Rights? Supreme Court Hears High-Stakes Case on Parental Opt-Outs
by Michael Keany
Apr 22
Curriculum Control or Constitutional Rights? Supreme Court Hears High-Stakes Case on Parental Opt-Outs
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up a pivotal case that may redefine who has ultimate authority over public school curriculum: locally elected school boards or the federal courts. At the heart of the legal debate is whether public schools must accommodate parental religious objections by allowing students to opt out of instruction involving LGBTQ+ themes.
The case originates from Montgomery County, Maryland, one of the most religiously diverse counties in the U.S., where the school board introduced five children’s storybooks featuring LGBTQ+ characters into the elementary curriculum. The goal was to promote tolerance and respect for students and families of all identities.
However, some parents objected on religious grounds. Grace Morrison, a parent of a 10-year-old child with Down syndrome, argued the material conflicted with her faith and was too developmentally complex for her daughter. Initially, the school board granted opt-outs, but they were later revoked due to logistical complications—such as the unpredictability of when and how the books might be used during regular lessons.
Represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the plaintiffs argue that the Constitution guarantees parents the right to direct their children's moral and religious upbringing and that mandatory exposure to LGBTQ+ content violates the Free Exercise Clause.
Supporters of the school board, including leading legal scholars like Yale Law professor Justin Driver and Stanford’s Eugene Volokh, argue the board acted within its authority and balanced competing views appropriately. They maintain the Court has historically deferred to school boards, unless curriculum amounts to religious coercion, which they assert is not the case here.
Public comment on the issue has been passionate. At school board meetings, large crowds gathered from both sides. One student named Nick defended the inclusive materials, saying, “We have rights, too. We deserve to have books that teach people about LGBTQ... it’s not hurting you.”
From a legal standpoint, the objecting parents are not just challenging this specific curriculum but asking the Court to establish a constitutional right to broad parental opt-outs from public school instruction based on religious beliefs. That could open the door to opt-outs from units on evolution, women’s history, and other commonly taught content that some groups find objectionable.
Opponents of opt-outs warn that allowing individual religious objections to dictate curriculum could destabilize public education, turning lessons into ideological battlegrounds and making cohesive instruction unworkable.
Significantly, the current Supreme Court leans heavily conservative, with six of the nine justices educated in private Catholic schools. The Court has increasingly emphasized free exercise of religion over separation of church and state, signaling it may side with religious plaintiffs.
If the justices rule that schools must allow religious opt-outs beyond existing policies for sex education, it could dramatically shift curriculum governance from elected school boards to the judiciary, impacting districts nationwide. For educators, this raises complex questions: How do we respect religious diversity while ensuring inclusive, comprehensive instruction for all students?
This case represents not just a culture war flashpoint but a test of public education’s foundational values—inclusion, local control, and the civic role of schools in preparing students to engage in a diverse society.
Original Article
------------------------------
Prepared with the assistance of AI software
OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (4) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com
Citation: Totenberg, N. (2025, April 22). Supreme Court weighs who should decide public school curriculum: Judges or school boards? NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/1245896480/supreme-court-public-scho...