BREAKING: SCOTUS rules 6-3 parents can opt kids out of LGBTQ lessons in schools

"Parents challenging the Board’s introduction of the 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction," the court stated.

"Today, we hold that the parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. 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 court.

"The Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion. The parents have therefore shown that they are likely to succeed in their free exercise claims. They have likewise shown entitlement to a preliminary injunction pending the completion of this lawsuit."

"In the absence of an injunction, the parents will continue to be put to a choice: either risk their child’s exposure to burdensome instruction, or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services. As we have explained, that choice unconstitutionally burdens the parents’ religious exercise, and '[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.'"

Alito wrote that while the case plays out in the appeals court, "the Board should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction."

The parents, who come from a broad range of religious backgrounds, filed their case against the school after their ability to opt their children out of the readings was removed. The parents’ case saw dozens of organizations and officials file amicus briefs in support, including 25 state attorneys general.

The high court was requested to rule on whether "public schools burden parents' religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out."

In their petition to the court, the parents said that the board continued to allow parents to opt their children out of "analogous instruction in the sex education unit of state-mandated health classes, including for high schoolers," but would not allow them to opt their young students out of the book readings.

During arguments before the court in April, attorney Alan Schoenfeld, who represented Montgomery County Public Schools, claimed that "the record makes clear that the school district did try to honor the opt-out, and at some point it became infeasible." He said that after the books were brought into the classrooms, "there was high absenteeism in some schools. For example, dozens of students being opted out, I think Mr. Baxter said the average size of an elementary school in Montgomery County is 700 students. So each grade is 125."

Schoenfeld said, "If you have dozens of students walking out, making arrangements for those students to have adequate space and supervision and alternative instruction I think is infeasible."

Justices narrowed in during arguments on the question of exposure versus coercion as it relates to exposing students to new ideas. Schoenfeld said, "I think that the line that we advocate between exposure and coercion is the relevant one. And there may be circumstances where, given the age of the student or given the particular presentation of information in the classroom, a plaintiff may be able to make out a case that their child is being coerced."