A divided U.S. Supreme Court who want to pull their children out of the classroom when a public school lesson uses .
The 6-3 decision Friday in a case brought by parents in Maryland comes as certain from public schools and libraries.
In Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion 鈥� joined by the rest of the court's conservatives 鈥� he wrote that the lack of an 鈥渙pt-out鈥� for parents places an unconstitutional burden on their rights to religious freedom.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that public schools expose children to different views in a multicultural society.
鈥淭hat experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,鈥� she wrote. 鈥淵et it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents鈥� religious beliefs."
Here's what to know about the case and its potential impacts:
What happens next
was not a final ruling in the case. It reversed lower-court rulings that sided with the Montgomery County school system, which introduced the storybooks in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district鈥檚 diversity.
At first, the school district allowed parents to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the district later reversed course, . The move prompted protests and eventually a lawsuit.
Now, the case goes back to the lower court to be reevaluated under 鈥檚 new guidance. But the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end.
The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in this case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them.
The ruling could have national implications for public education
Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the court's ruling could inspire similar lawsuits in other states.
鈥淚 think any school district that reads similar books to their children is now subject to suit by parents who don't want their kids to hear these books because it substantially interferes with their religious beliefs," she said.
Whether it could open the door to broader legal challenges remains to be seen.
Levinson said the majority opinion's emphasis on the content of the books at the center of the case, including 鈥淯ncle Bobby鈥檚 Wedding,鈥� a story about a two men getting married, could narrow its impact.
鈥淭he question that people will ask," Levinson said, 鈥渋s if this could now allow parents to say, 鈥榃e don鈥檛 want our kids to learn about certain aspects of American history.鈥� 鈥�
LGBTQ rights advocates slam court ruling
Adam Zimmerman, who has two kids in school in Montgomery County, Maryland, called the ruling abhorrent.
鈥淲e need to call out what鈥檚 being dressed up as religious faith and values and expose it for the intolerance that it really is,鈥� he said.
Zimmerman has lived in Montgomery County for 16 years and wanted to raise his son and daughter there, in large part, because of the school district's diversity. It was important to him, he said, that his kids be exposed to people from all walks of life.
鈥淚t's a beautiful thing, and this ruling just spits on that diversity," he said.
Other rights groups described the court's decision as harmful and dangerous.
"No matter what the Supreme Court has said, and what extremist groups are advocating for, book bans and other censorship will not erase LGBTQIA+ people from our communities,鈥� said Fatima Goss Graves, CEO and president of the National Women's Law Center.
Conservative advocates say the case is about parental rights and religious freedom
Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was part of an amicus brief filed in the case in support of the Maryland parents, called the ruling a 鈥渨in for families.鈥�
"Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family鈥檚 religious beliefs,鈥� he said.
Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the parents at the Supreme Court, also called the decision a 鈥渉istoric victory for parental rights.鈥�
鈥淜ids shouldn鈥檛 be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents鈥� permission,鈥� Baxter said.
Other opponents say ruling will have 'broad chilling effect鈥�
PEN America, a group advocating for free expression, said the court's decision could open the door to censorship and discrimination in classrooms.
鈥淚n practice, opt outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold,鈥� said Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney at PEN America.
In a joint statement Friday, some of the authors and illustrators of the books in question described the ruling as a threat to First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as diversity in schools.
鈥淭o treat children鈥檚 books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful,鈥� the statement said.
Rio Yamat, The Associated Press
