Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson join, dissenting.

Public schools, this Court has said, are “‘at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.’” Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578, 584 (1987). They offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.

Today’s ruling ushers in that new reality. Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to “subtle” themes “contrary to the religious principles” that parents wish to instill in their children. Ante, at 23. Exposing students to the “message” that LGBTQ people exist, and that their loved ones may celebrate their marriages and life events, the majority says, is enough to trigger the most demanding form of judicial scrutiny. Ibid. That novel rule is squarely foreclosed by our precedent and offers no limiting principle. Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parent’s religious beliefs. If that is sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny, then little is not.

The result will be chaos for this Nation’s public schools. 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 harm will not be borne by educators alone: Children will suffer too. Classroom disruptions and absences may well inflict long-lasting harm on students’ learning and development.

Worse yet, the majority closes its eyes to the inevitable chilling effects of its ruling. Many school districts, and particularly the most resource strapped, cannot afford to engage in costly litigation over opt-out rights or to divert resources to tracking and managing student absences. Schools may instead censor their curricula, stripping material that risks generating religious objections. The Court’s ruling, in effect, thus hands a subset of parents the right to veto curricular choices long left to locally elected school boards. Because I cannot countenance the Court’s contortion of our precedent and the untold harms that will follow, I dissent.

I

By the majority’s telling, the Montgomery County Public School Board (Board) has undertaken an intentional campaign to “impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are ‘hostile’ to their parents’ religious” principles. Ante, at 25; see ante, at 3–11. The Court draws on excerpts from Board documents and statements, shorn from context, see infra, at 30–33, and n. 16, that it claims reflect that intent. The full record reveals a starkly different reality.

A

In the years leading up to the present dispute, the Board determined that the books in its English language curriculum failed to represent many students and families in the county. The Board has long been committed to promoting a “fully inclusive environment for all students” by using instructional materials that “reflect [the] diversity of the global community,” including “persons with disabilities, persons from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds, as well as persons of diverse gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 589a–590a, 603a. Yet certain perspectives, the Board concluded, were absent from its English language curriculum. The Board, for instance, determined that some “races and cultures” were not adequately reflected. Id., at 602a. In response, it added books like The Leavers, which tells the story of an Asian-American immigrant family, and the March trilogy, which recounts the life of civil rights leader John Lewis.

The Board found that LGBTQ children and families were similarly underrepresented in its English language curriculum. The books taught in English classes simply “did not include LGBTQ characters.” Id., at 603a. To fill that gap, the Board worked with a committee of specialists to identify LGBTQ-inclusive books that it could incorporate into the existing curriculum. After a years-long process, the Board announced in October 2022 that it would add several new books into the elementary school English language curriculum, five of which are at issue in this case (collectively, the Storybooks).¹

Uncle Bobby’s Wedding tells the story of a young girl named Chloe and her “favourite uncle.” Id., at 282a. Chloe loves spending time with her Uncle Bobby, and the two often go on adventures, like boating trips and stargazing outings. One day, during a family picnic, Uncle Bobby announces that he is engaged to his friend, Jamie. The announcement is met with much excitement, and the whole family is “smiling and talking and crying and laughing.” Id., at 286a. Chloe, however, is apprehensive. She tells her uncle she “do[esn’t] think [he] should get married” because she “want[s them] to keep having fun together like always.” Id., at 292a. Uncle Bobby promises that they will “‘still have fun together,’” ibid., and he and Jamie take Chloe on trips to the ballet, to the beach, and out camping. Chloe’s excitement for the wedding grows, and on the day of the ceremony, she “was so happy, she felt like doing a cartwheel” down the aisle. Id., at 302a. The story ends with everyone dancing happily at the wedding under the light of the moon. Id., at 279a.

Because the majority selectively excerpts the book in order to rewrite its story, readers are encouraged to go directly to the source, reproduced below. See Appendix, infra; see also infra, at 19–20, and n. 8.²

The remaining books play on similar themes. Prince & Knight tells the story of a prince who falls in love with a young knight after the knight helps him defeat a fearsome dragon. Love, Violet describes a shy girl who has a crush on her classmate, Mira and eventually gives her a Valentine’s Day card that says “For Mira, Love, Violet.” Id., at 434a.

Other books introduce readers to children from different backgrounds and identities. Intersection Allies features eight different characters, each with their own unique attributes. Alejandra, for instance, uses a wheelchair that allows her to “zzzip glide and play,” id., at 316a, while Kate prefers “superhero cape[s]” over “[s]kirts and frills” and is pictured in a gender-neutral bathroom, id., at 322a–323a. Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope tells the story of a child who likes skateboarding, “baggy blue jeans, button-front shirts, math, science, and getting straight A’s,” and “most of all” wants a “Mohawk haircut.” Id., at 452a. When Penelope tells his mother that he is a boy, she accepts him: “‘However you feel is fine, baby,’” she says. Id., at 458a. When Penelope’s brother expresses skepticism, his mother says, “‘Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.’” Id., at 465a (emphasis in original).

The five Storybooks introduce readers to LGBTQ characters, but they draw on many of the themes common to children’s books. Indeed, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) libraries are replete with children’s books that tell similar stories about overcoming differences, fairytale romances, and celebrating big milestones like weddings. See MCPS Library Portal, https://mcpsmd.follettdestiny.com/portal (online catalogue of MCPS elementary school books).

The Board directed the schools to use the new books in the same manner as all other books in the English language program, namely, to “assist students with mastering reading concepts like answering questions about characters, retelling key events about characters in a story, and drawing inferences about story characters based on their actions.” Id., at 605a. The Board made clear to individual schools that “there is no planned explicit instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in elementary school,” using the Storybooks or otherwise. Ibid. The Board’s policies, moreover, mandate that “no student or adult [will be] asked to change how they feel about” issues of “gender identity and sexual orientation,” ibid., and that, “[i]f a child does not agree with or understand another student’s gender identity or expression or their sexuality  \. \. \. , they do not have to change how they feel about it,” id., at 638a; see also id., at 520a.

Before MCPS introduced the books into classrooms, the Board provided guidance to teachers on how to respond to student questions and commentary regarding the books. The guidance focuses on encouraging mutual tolerance and “respect” for all those in the community. Id., at 628a. To take one example, if a child says that “[b]eing  \. \. \. gay, lesbian, queer, etc[.] is wrong and not allowed in [her] religion,” the guidance suggests that a teacher could respond by saying: “I understand that is what you believe, but not everyone believes that. We don’t have to understand or support a person’s identity to treat them with respect and kindness. School is a place where we learn to work together regardless of our differences. In any community, we’ll always find people with beliefs different from our own and that is okay—we can still show them respect.” Ibid.

The guidance also directs teachers to discourage the use of language that could be hurtful to students in the class. If a student says, “That’s so gay,” for instance, the guidance suggests a teacher may respond by saying: “Regardless of how it’s intended, using gay to describe something negative reflects a long history of prejudice against LGBTQ+ people, so please don’t use it in that way.” Id., at 634a.

During the first year of the Storybooks’ inclusion in the English language program, MCPS permitted parents, through agreements with individual schools, to opt their children out of lessons that featured the books. Parents began making individualized opt-out requests. Although some of the requests were religious in nature, many were not.

In March 2023, the Board met with a “small group of principals” and learned that teachers could not accommodate the opt-out requests “without causing significant disruptions to the classroom environment and undermining MCPS’s educational mission.” Id., at 607a. The Board also worried that permitting some students to leave the classroom whenever a teacher brought out books featuring LGBTQ characters could expose LGBTQ students (and those with LGBTQ parents) to social stigma and isolation. MCPS therefore announced it would no longer permit parents to opt out of instruction using the Storybooks.

B

MCPS regulations establish a multilevel appeal process for parents to challenge the “appropriateness of instructional materials or library books.” App. 25. Parents can first raise objections at the school level. If that proves unsuccessful, parents can appeal to the head of the district’s evaluation and selection unit, who must “[a]ppoint an ad hoc committee” of library media specialists, teachers, principals, and other staff “to reevaluate the material.” Ibid. The committee makes a recommendation to the associate superintendent for instruction and program development, who herself considers the appropriateness of the relevant instructional material and renders a decision. If the parents are still unsatisfied, they may appeal to the superintendent of schools, and then the board itself, pursuant to extensive county regulations governing appeal and hearing procedures.

C

Rather than avail themselves of the district’s established process for challenging objectionable instructional material, petitioners sued the MCPS Board in federal court.3 Using the Storybooks in English class “without parental notice or opt-out rights,” the parents argued, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution by “expos[ing]” their children to content that conflicts with the parents’ religious views. App. to Pet. for Cert. 190a, 194a. More specifically, petitioners Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat object to “exposing” their son “to activities and curriculum on sex, sexuality, and gender that undermine Islamic teaching on these subjects.” Id., at 532a. They worry that “reading th[e] [Story]books and engaging in related discussions would confuse [their son’s] religious upbringing” and “undermine [their] efforts to raise” their son “in accordance with [their] faith.” Id., at 532a–533a. Chris and Melissa Persak likewise object to “exposing” their children to “viewpoints on sex, sexuality, and gender that contradict Catholic teaching on these subjects.” Id., at 544a. Jeff and Svitlana Roman similarly believe that their son’s teachers should not “teach principles about sexuality or gender identity that conflict with [their] religious beliefs.” Id., at 541a.

Petitioners asked the district court to enjoin MCPS from “denying [them] notice and opportunity to opt their children out of reading, listening to, or discussing the  \. \. \. Storybooks,” and “any other instruction related to family life or human sexuality that violates the Parents’ or their children’s religious beliefs.” Motion for Preliminary Injunction in No. 23–cv–01380 (D Md., June 12, 2023), ECF Doc. 23, p. 1. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied petitioners’ preliminary injunction motion. See Mahmoud v. McKnight, 688 F. Supp. 3d 265, 272 (Md. 2023). The Fourth Circuit affirmed. 102 F. 4th 191 (2024). It held that petitioners had failed to establish that the Board “direct[ly] or indirect[ly] pressure[d]” them or their children to “abandon [their] religious beliefs or affirmatively act contrary to those beliefs” in the way this Court’s precedents require. Id., at 210 (citing Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn., 485 U. S. 439, 450 (1988)).

II

A

The Free Exercise Clause commands that the government “shall make no law  \. \. \. prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. “The crucial word in the constitutional text is ‘prohibit,’” for it makes clear “‘the Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can exact from the government.’” Lyng, 485 U. S., at 451.

It follows from the text that the Free Exercise Clause does not “require the Government itself to behave in ways that the individual believes will further his or her spiritual development or that of his or her family.” Bowen v. Roy, 476 U. S. 693, 699 (1986) (emphasis in original). Instead, the Clause prohibits the government from compelling individuals, whether directly or indirectly, to give up or violate their religious beliefs. See, e.g., Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 218 (1972) (Free Exercise Clause forbids “affirmatively compel[ling]” individuals “to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs”); School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 223 (1963) (“[I]t is necessary in a free exercise case for one to show the coercive effect of the enactment as it operates against him in the practice of his religion”); Bowen, 476 U. S., at 700 (“The Free Exercise Clause affords an individual protection from certain forms of governmental compulsion  \. \. \. ”); Lyng, 485 U. S., at 451 (Free Exercise Clause prohibits laws that have a “tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs”); Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. 449, 463 (2017) (“[T]he Free Exercise Clause protects against ‘indirect coercion  \. \. \. ’”); Carson v. Makin, 596 U. S. 767, 778 (2022) (same).

Consistent with these longstanding principles, this Court has made clear that mere exposure to objectionable ideas does not give rise to a free exercise claim. That makes sense: Simply being exposed to beliefs contrary to your own does not “prohibi[t]” the “free exercise” of your religion. Amdt. 1. Nor does mere “‘[o]ffense  \. \. \. equate to coercion.’” Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist., 597 U. S. 507, 539 (2022) (quoting Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. 565, 589 (2014) (plurality opinion) (alteration in original). The Constitution thus does not “‘guarantee citizens a right entirely to avoid ideas with which they disagree.’” Id., at 589. Indeed, “[i]t would betray its own principles if it did,” for “no robust democracy insulates its citizens from views that they might find novel or even inflammatory.” Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 44 (2004) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment).

There is no public school exception to these principles. This Court’s decision in West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943), is instructive. There, the Court held that “compelling” students who adhere to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith to salute the flag, in contravention of their religious beliefs, violated the First Amendment. Id., at 642. Yet the Court distinguished the “compulsion of students to declare a belief ” from simply exposing students to ideas that might conflict with their religious tenets. Id., at 631. For instance, the Court recognized that schools could “acquain[t students] with the flag salute so that they may be informed as to what it is or even what it means.” Ibid. No problem arose, either, the Court observed, from having objecting students “remai[n] passive during a flag salute ritual,” while watching the rest of the class engage in it. Id., at 634. What the State could not do, however, is “compe[l] the flag salute and pledge,” when those actions required students to “declare a belief ” contrary to their own religious views. Id., at 631, 642.

So too, in Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist., the Court recognized that seeing objectionable conduct alone is not actionable under the First Amendment. There, the Court rejected the argument that the exposure of children to a school coach’s religious prayer violated the Establishment Clause. See 597 U. S., at 538–539. Even though hearing and watching an authority figure engage in a denominational prayer with classmates at a school-sponsored event could, of course, undermine parents’ efforts to instill different religious beliefs in their children, a majority of this Court concluded that no cognizable “coercion” had occurred, and so no Establishment Clause violation inhered in the coach’s conduct. See id., at 539.⁴

In sum, never, in the context of public schools or elsewhere, has this Court held that mere exposure to concepts inconsistent with one’s religious beliefs could give rise to a First Amendment claim.⁵

B

These well-established principles, previously recognized and respected by this Court, resolve this case. As recounted earlier, each of the three sets of parent-plaintiffs premised their objections on, in essence, “expos[ure]” to material that conflicts with their religious beliefs. App. to Pet. for Cert. 532a; see supra, at 8–9; see also App. to Pet. for Cert. 194a (challenging “exposure to the Pride Storybooks” and having “children  \. \. \. read the Pride Storybooks”). Yet for the reasons just explained, the effects of mere exposure to material with which one disagrees does not and should not give rise to a free exercise claim.

Nor have petitioners shown that MCPS’s policies coerced them to give up or violate their religious beliefs. See Barnette, 319 U. S., at 633. To the contrary, MCPS explicitly prohibits teachers from asking students to give up or change their views regarding gender and sexuality, whether religious or not. See supra, at 6; see also App. to Pet. for Cert. 520a, 605a, 638a. The parents have proffered no evidence of teachers acting contrary to that policy.

Recall, too, that MCPS exclusively uses the challenged Storybooks to teach students literacy in English language class. Like all other books in the English language curriculum, the Storybooks will be used to “assist students with mastering reading concepts like answering questions about characters, retelling key events about characters in a story, and drawing inferences about story characters based on their actions.” Id., at 605a. As for integrating the books into classes, teachers may opt “to put them on a shelf for students to find on their own; to recommend a book to a student who would enjoy it; to offer the books as an option for literature circles, book clubs, or paired reading groups; or to use them as a read aloud.” Id., at 604a–605a. It is possible, of course, that such instruction may introduce students to concepts or views objectionable to their faiths. Being “merely made acquainted with” these themes, however, does not give rise to a cognizable free exercise burden. Barnette, 319 U. S., at 631.

III

Rather than follow this Court’s unambiguous precedent, the majority rescues petitioners’ exposure theory by simply renaming it. Petitioners’ free exercise rights are burdened by the Storybooks, the majority claims, because they “carry with them ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs that the parents wish to instill in their children.” Ante, at 31. In other words, reading books like Uncle Bobby’s Wedding is sufficient, in the majority’s view, because of the “‘threat’” those books pose to the religious upbringing of petitioners’ children. Ibid.; see ante, at 36–37. That is simply exposure by another name.

From where does the majority derive its novel “threat” test? Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, the majority claims, established it over half a century ago, unbeknownst to any court of appeals in the Nation (and until today, this Court as well).

The flaws in the majority’s reasoning are legion. The Court’s reading of Yoder is not simply incorrect; it is definitively foreclosed by precedent. The majority’s novel test, moreover, imposes no meaningful limits on the types of school decisions subject to strict scrutiny, as the Court’s own application of its test confirms. Today’s ruling thus promises to wreak havoc on our Nation’s public schools and the courts tasked with resolving this new font of litigation.

A

1

Start with the majority’s misreading of Yoder. According to the Court, Yoder held that the government violates the “‘rights of parents to direct “the religious upbringing” of their children’” whenever a government policy “poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.” Ante, at 1, 17. That is incorrect.

Yoder addressed a First Amendment challenge to Wisconsin’s “compulsory-attendance law” for high school students. 406 U. S., at 207. The law compelled parents to send their children to public school or an equivalent until age 16, and imposed criminal penalties on violators. See ibid. A group of Amish parents punished under the law argued that their convictions violated the Free Exercise Clause because “their children’s attendance at high school, public or private, was contrary to the Amish religion and way of life.” Id., at 209.

This Court agreed. See id., at 234–236. Wisconsin’s law violated the Free Exercise Clause because it “affirmatively compel[led]” the parents, “under threat of criminal sanction, to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs.” Id., at 218. “Formal high school education beyond eighth grade,” the Court explained, foreclosed Amish religious practice by “tak[ing children] away from their community” at a time when they “must acquire  \. \. \. the specific skills needed to perform the adult role of an Amish farmer or housewife.” Id., at 211. Sending their children to school during that “crucial” time would accordingly require the Amish parents to “abandon” their faith. Id., at 218.

Yoder thus does not support the proposition that any government policy that poses a “‘very real threat’” to a parent’s religious development of their child triggers strict scrutiny. Ante, at 1, 25. The problem in Yoder was not that the law exposed children to material that would incidentally “undermine” religious beliefs, but that it compelled Amish parents to do what their religion forbade: send their children away rather than integrate them into the Amish community at home. Contra, ante, at 1, 20–21, 33, n. 11.⁶

If there were any doubt, this Court already rejected the majority’s flawed reading of Yoder in Lyng, 485 U. S. 439. There, a group of Native Americans brought a free exercise challenge to the construction of a federal road through an area that the group used “to conduct a wide variety of specific rituals.” Id., at 451. This Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim. Id., at 449–451. Although “the challenged Government action would interfere significantly with private persons’ ability to pursue spiritual fulfillment according to their own religious beliefs,” the Court reasoned, the affected individuals would not be “coerced by the Government’s action into violating their religious beliefs.” Id., at 449. Accordingly, the Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to make out a cognizable free exercise claim. See id., at 451–452.

The dissent in Lyng argued that the Court’s ruling conflicted with Yoder, which it described as “str[iking] down a state compulsory school attendance law on free exercise grounds not so much because of the affirmative coercion the law exerted on individual religious practitioners, but because of ‘the impact’” that the law would have on Amish communities. 485 U. S., at 466 (opinion of Brennan, J.) (emphasis deleted). Wisconsin’s law implicated the Free Exercise Clause, the dissent claimed, because the school environment “posed ‘a very real threat of undermining the Amish community and religious practice.’” Id., at 467 (quoting Yoder, 406 U. S., at 218). The majority today uses that same refrain as the foundation of its analysis. See, e.g., ante, at 1, 15, 25, 28, 37.

The Court in Lyng, however, could not have been clearer: “The dissent  \. \. \. misreads Wisconsin v. Yoder.” 485 U. S., at 456. “The statute directly compelled the Amish to send their children to public high schools ‘contrary to the Amish religion and way of life,’” the Court explained. Id., at 457. “The dissent’s out-of-context quotations notwithstanding, there is nothing whatsoever in the Yoder opinion to support the proposition that the ‘impact’ on the Amish religion would have been constitutionally problematic if the statute at issue had not been coercive in nature.” Ibid. So the mere “threat of undermining” Amish beliefs and practices was not, on its own, what gave rise to a cognizable free exercise burden in Yoder. Contra, ante, at 1, 15, 25, 28, 37. “Whatever may be the exact line between unconstitutional prohibitions on the free exercise of religion and the legitimate conduct by government of its own affairs,” Lyng explained, “the location of the line cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector’s spiritual development.” 485 U. S., at 451.

The majority’s novel test directly contravenes not only Lyng, but also Bowen, 476 U. S. 693. There, the Court addressed a father’s free exercise challenge to the Government’s use of a Social Security number associated with his daughter as a condition of receiving certain Government benefits. See id., at 695–696. According to the father’s sincerely held religious beliefs, use of the Social Security number would “‘rob the spirit’ of his daughter and prevent her from attaining greater spiritual power,” thereby interfering with his ability to direct the religious development of his child. Id., at 696. This Court rejected the father’s claim. “Never  \. \. \. has the Court interpreted the First Amendment to require the Government itself to behave in ways that the individual believes will further his or her spiritual development or that of his or her family,” the Court explained. Id., at 699 (emphasis in original).

The majority’s “very real threat” test is irreconcilable with Bowen. There can be no question that the Government’s challenged policy in Bowen gravely threatened the father’s ability to direct his child’s religious development; the Government’s “us[e]” of his daughter’s Social Security number would (in the father’s sincerely held view) “‘rob the spirit’ of his daughter.” Id., at 696. So if the test for identifying a cognizable free exercise burden is, as the majority today claims, whether the law poses “‘a very real threat of undermining’” a parent’s religious development of their child, ante, at 25, then Bowen was wrongly decided.

2

The majority relegates its discussion of Bowen and Lyng to a few sentences, claiming that those cases involved “internal affairs” of Government. Ante, at 28. The majority, however, articulates no coherent line between the “internal affairs” that the Court deemed nonactionable in those two cases and the external effects of government decisions that the majority announces are actionable here.

In Bowen, the entire premise of the father’s claim was that the Government’s internal choices about how to operate its program would have external effects on his right to direct the religious development of his child: The father averred that the Government’s use of his child’s Social Security number would irrevocably destroy his child’s “spirit,” and thus his ability to protect her spiritual development. 476 U. S., at 696. Here, by the majority’s own telling, the parents make the same type of claim. They argue that the schools’ use of the Storybooks will harm their ability to direct their children’s religious development. See ante, at 1, 11–12, 25. The underlying theories are indistinguishable.

The incoherence of the majority’s “internal affairs” theory comes into even sharper focus as applied to the Court’s decision in Lyng. There, the Court acknowledged that the Government’s construction of the road would “‘physically destro[y] the environmental conditions and the privacy without which the [religious] practices cannot be conducted.’” 485 U. S., at 449 (alterations in original). Yet the majority today recasts the decision to build a road through sacred land as a purely “internal affai[r]” of the Government, thereby rendering Lyng inapposite. Ante, at 28. Implausible as that assertion may be, it is the majority’s only maneuver around Bowen and Lyng. In short, the Court’s novel “threat” test flouts settled precedent, and the majority’s contrary claim is illogical.

B

That is only the beginning of the majority’s errors. Turn, next, to the Court’s articulation of what, exactly, the “very real threat” is that triggers the most demanding level of judicial review. The majority declares the inquiry will turn on several context clues: the “specific religious beliefs and practices asserted,” the “specific nature of the educational requirement or curricular feature at issue,” the age of the children, and the context and manner in which the relevant materials “are presented.” Ante, at 21. On that last point, the majority adds, courts should ask whether the materials are “presented in a neutral manner” or “in a manner that is ‘hostile’ to religious viewpoints and designed to impose upon students a ‘pressure to conform.’” Ibid. (quoting Yoder, 406 U. S., at 211).

That test lacks any meaningful limit. Consider what the majority deems intolerably “hostile” to religious views. Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, the Court asserts, contains a “subtle” “normative” message about marriage that is “contrary to the religious principles that the parents in this case wish to instill in their children”: that “two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex, so long as they ‘“love each other.”’” Ante, at 23. According to the Court, that message is apparent in the “jubilant” reactions of Uncle Bobby’s family to his engagement announcement and a statement by the protagonist’s mother that, “‘“[w]hen grown-up people love each other that much, sometimes they get married.”’” Ibid.; see App. to Pet. for Cert. 288a.⁷

With those snippets in hand, the majority concludes that Uncle Bobby’s Wedding is akin to “the compulsory high school education law considered in Yoder.” Ante, at 25. Reading the book aloud in elementary class, the majority claims, “impose[s] upon children a set of values and beliefs that are ‘hostile’ to their parents’ religious [views]” and “exert[s] upon children a psychological ‘pressure to conform’” to the view that families can be happy about same-sex weddings. Ibid. (quoting Yoder, 406 U. S., at 211). That is apparently enough, in the majority’s view, to create a cognizable free exercise burden, for the Court ultimately prohibits use of the Storybooks “or any other similar book” “in any way” absent an opt-out right. Ante, at 41.

Even if Yoder had established some form of “threat” test, the majority’s application of it in this case would expand it beyond recognition. The Court in Yoder detailed, at length, the record evidence that compulsory high school attendance would “result in the destruction of the Old Order Amish church community as it exist[ed] in the United States.” 406 U. S., at 212; see id., at 209–213. Compelled attendance effectively barred “integration of the Amish child into the Amish religious community,” id., at 211–212, such that, under Wisconsin’s law, the petitioners in Yoder were forced “either [to] abandon belief and be assimilated into society at large, or  \. \. \. to migrate to some other and more tolerant region,” id., at 218. Yoder thus set an exceedingly high bar for future plaintiffs to clear. Indeed, the Court in Yoder explicitly predicted that “few other religious groups” could make the showing that the Amish parents in that case had. Id., at 236.

Yet, in the majority’s eyes, reading aloud Uncle Bobby’s Wedding is just “[l]ike the compulsory high school education considered in Yoder.” Ante, at 25. That assertion is remarkable. Reading a storybook that portrays a family as happy at the news of their gay son’s engagement, the majority claims, is equivalent to a law that threatened the very “survival of [the] Amish communit[y]” in the United States. 406 U. S., at 209; see ante, at 25. To read that sentence is to refute it.⁸

The majority’s myopic attempt to resolve a major constitutional question through close textual analysis of Uncle Bobby’s Wedding also reveals its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist. They are part of virtually every community and workplace of any appreciable size. Eliminating books depicting LGBTQ individuals as happily accepted by their families will not eliminate student exposure to that concept. Nor does the Free Exercise Clause require the government to alter its programs to insulate students from that “message.” Ante, at 23.

In distorting Yoder to say otherwise, the majority leaves its test without any discernible limits. How are courts objectively to evaluate what amounts to a “very real threat” to a parent’s religious development of their child? Should they try to measure the intensity of the parent’s protestations, or must they simply accept the parent’s assertion that exposure to any particular book threatens their child’s religious upbringing? Or will judges simply know it when they see it and call their analysis “fact-intensive”? Ante, at 21. Perhaps cognizant of this problem, the majority insists repeatedly that its test looks for an “‘objective danger to the free exercise of religion.’” Ante, at 15, 17, 21, 25, 27. That incantation, however, will be cold comfort to courts attempting to apply this peculiarly subjective test.

What is more, if even potentially imagined “coy” messages hidden in a picture book are sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny when they conflict with a parent’s religious beliefs, ante, at 23, then it is hard to say what will not. Indeed, as the majority admits, “many books targeted at young children” contain a “normative” message, ante, at 22, about, say, the virtues of helping your community or the joys of getting married. (How many children’s books, after all, end with a joyous wedding and the couple living happily ever after?) The same is true for books and textbooks throughout any public school curriculum.

Given the multiplicity of religious beliefs in this country, innumerable themes may be “contrary to the religious principles” that parents “wish to instill in their children.” Ante, at 23. Books expressing implicit support for patriotism, women’s rights, interfaith marriage, consumption of meat, immodest dress, and countless other topics may conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs and thus trigger stringent judicial review under the majority’s test. Imagine a children’s picture book that celebrates the achievements of women in history, including female scientists, politicians, astronauts, and authors. Perhaps the book even features a page that states, “Girls can do it all!” That message may be “directly contrary to the religious principles that” a parent “wish[es] to instill in their chil[d].” Ibid. In the majority’s view, it appears, that is sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny of any school policy not providing notice and opt out to objecting parents.

These types of challenges are not mere hypotheticals, either. Lower courts have long fielded religious objections of this nature. See, e.g., Mozert v. Hawkins Cty. Bd. of Ed., 827 F. 2d 1058, 1062 (CA6 1987) (religious objections to “biographical material about women who have been recognized for achievements outside their homes,” lessons on “evolution,” and teaching “children to use imagination beyond the limitation of scriptural authority”); Fleischfresser v. Directors of School Dist. 200, 15 F. 3d 680, 683 (CA7 1994) (religious objections to materials containing “‘wizards, sorcerers, giants and other unspecified creatures with supernatural powers’”); Altman v. Bedford Central School Dist., 245 F. 3d 49, 56, 60–63 (CA2 2001) (religious objections to activities involving, among other things, yoga, meditation exercises, and the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program); Moody v. Cronin, 484 F. Supp. 270, 272 (CD Ill. 1979) (religious objections to “mandatory coeducational physical education” that requires children to “view and interact with members of the opposite sex who are wearing ‘immodest attire’”).

Nor is the Court’s reasoning seemingly limited to reading material. Interactions with teachers and students could presumably involve implicit “normative” messages that parents may find “contrary to the religious principles” they wish to impart to their children and therefore “hostile” to their religious beliefs. Ante, at 22–23, 25. A female teacher displaying a wedding photo with her wife; a student’s presentation on her family tree featuring LGBTQ parents or siblings; or an art display with the phrase “Love Is Love” all could “positively reinforc[e]” messages that parents disapprove on religious grounds. Ante, at 24. Would that be sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny if a school fails to provide advance notice and the opportunity to opt out of any such exposure? The majority offers no principled basis easily to distinguish those cases from this one.

Hard questions might arise, too, from a school’s efforts to encourage mutual respect or to prevent bullying. If a student calls a classmate a “sinner” for not wearing a headcovering or coming out as gay, how can a teacher respond without “undermining” that child’s religious beliefs? Can parents litigate the content of teacher responses and impose scripts or opt-out policies for everyday interactions designed to foster tolerance and civility? Again, the majority gives no guidance.

C

One thing is clear, however: The damage to America’s public education system will be profound. Over 47 million students attend K–12 public schools in the United States, with nearly 17 million in elementary school. See Dept. of Commerce, J. Fabina, E. Hernandez, & K. McElrath, U. S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau), School Enrollment in the United States: 2021, p. 2 (2023). These students and their parents adhere to a wide range of religious beliefs, and the range of curricular topics, from science to literature to music and theater, covered in public schools is similarly vast. Against that backdrop, requiring schools to provide advance notice and the opportunity to opt out of every book, presentation, or field trip where students might encounter materials that conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.

Consider, first, the difficulties of providing adequate advance notice. There are more than 370 distinct religious groups in this country,⁹ and as the majority points out, Montgomery County is the “‘most religiously diverse county’” in the Nation. Ante, at 2. Under the majority’s test, school administrators will have to become experts in a wide range of religious doctrines in order to predict, in advance, whether a parent may object to a particular text, lesson plan, or school activity as contrary to their religious beliefs. The scale of the problem is only compounded by the majority’s conclusion that even “subtle” and implicit messages contained in children’s books can trigger notice and opt-out obligations. Ante, at 23. If a parent objects to all material and interactions that support “nontraditional gender roles,” for instance, how are schools workably to deduce what books might cross the line? Or take the parents’ request in this very case: How should a school go about identifying “any other instruction related to family life or human sexuality that violates the [p]arents’ or their children’s religious beliefs” in addition to the five Storybooks at issue here? ECF Doc. 23, at 1. Those in the majority will apparently “know it when [they] see it.” Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring) (referring to pornography).

Of course, school districts are currently free to publish information about their curricula. As one group of amici representing over 10,000 school district leaders and advocates and an association of 25 state school board associations attests, however, “it would be an extreme and overly broad burden to force all school districts in the country” to provide the extensive notification regime that the majority’s test would require. Brief for School Superintendents Association et al. as Amici Curiae 15 (Brief for AASA); see also Brief for National Education Association et al. as Amici Curiae 21–29 (explaining that “endless administrative confusion” would result from petitioners’ requested notice mandate). Such a regime, amici warn, would force school administrators and teachers “to divert their already limited resources and time to ensure full compliance” with these new “parental notification rights.” Brief for AASA 15.

Managing opt outs will impose even greater administrative burdens. At present, the vast majority of States that allow parents to opt students out of instruction limit that right to a specific course or single curricular unit, rather than permitting opt outs for certain themes or particular materials. See id., at 10–14, and n. 10 (collecting state statutes). That approach ensures that opt outs can be “administered centrally” in a way that “reduce[s] the burden on teachers and principals” and “minimizes interruption o[f] classroom instruction for other students.” Id., at 14.

Establishing a new constitutional right to opt out of any instruction that involves themes contrary to anyone’s religious beliefs will create a nightmare for school administrators tasked with fielding, tracking, and operationalizing highly individualized and vaguely defined requests for particular students, as this Board learned. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 606a–607a.

Opt outs will not just affect classroom instruction, either. Teachers will need to adjust homework assignments to exclude objectionable material and develop bespoke exams for students subject to different opt-out preferences. See Brief for Justin Driver et al. as Amici Curiae. Schools will have to divert resources and staff to supervising students during opt-out periods, too, which could become a significant drain on funding and staffing that is already stretched thin. See Brief for AASA 15–16.

Worse yet, the majority’s new rule will have serious chilling effects on public school curricula. Few school districts will be able to afford costly litigation over opt-out rights or to divert resources to administering impracticable notice and opt-out systems for individual students. The foreseeable result is that some school districts may strip their curricula of content that risks generating religious objections. See Brief for Justin Driver et al. as Amici Curiae 22. In the current moment, that means material representing LGBTQ students and families, like the Storybooks here, will be among the first to go, with grave consequences for LGBTQ students and our society. See Brief for State of Maryland et al. as Amici Curiae (discussing the importance of efforts like MCPS’s in combating harassment against LGBTQ youth). Next to go could be teaching on evolution, the work of female scientist Marie Curie, or the history of vaccines.

In effect, then, the majority’s new rule will hand a subset of parents a veto power over countless curricular and administrative decisions. Yet that authority has long been left to democratically elected state and local decisionmakers, not individual parents and courts. This Court has repeatedly recognized the wisdom of that regime, including in Yoder itself. See 406 U. S., at 235 (underscoring the “obvious fact that courts are not school boards or legislatures, and are ill-equipped to determine the ‘necessity’ of discrete aspects of a State’s program of compulsory education”); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 42 (1973) (recognizing that “educational policy” is an “area in which this Court’s lack of specialized knowledge and experience counsels against premature interference with the informed judgments made at the state and local levels”); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97, 104 (1968) (“By and large, public education in our Nation is committed to the control of state and local authorities”).

At present, States and localities across the Nation have adopted a patchwork of different policies governing school material related to gender and sexuality and parental opt-out rights. For instance, some States mandate, while others forbid, instruction on sexual orientation. See Brief for AASA 5–6, and nn.4–8 (collecting state statutes). Statutes governing opt-out policies are equally diverse. See id., at 10–14, and nn. 10–22. Tellingly, however, only a handful of States have permitted opt-out rights for all material that a parent finds objectionable, see id., at 13–14, and nn. 20–21, and even some of those States have required that the parents and school agree upon an alternative lesson plan that the parent will fund, id., at 13, and n. 20. Today’s decision will thus usher in a sea change in the law, shifting the primary locus of decisionmaking on these difficult and often contested policy issues from democratically elected officials to judges.

There is also real reason to think that the democratic process and local mechanisms for parental advocacy were working here. Three of the seven MCPS Board members were voted out during the most recent election, see ABC 7 News, K. Lynn, Montgomery County Voters Elect New School Board Members in Significant Shift (Nov. 12, 2024), https://wjla.com/news/local/montgomery-county-voters-elect-new-school-board-members-education-association-president-david-stein-leadership-rita-montoya-laura-stewart-natalie-zimmerman-accountability-maryland-dmv, and two of the seven books to which the parents originally objected are no longer in use, see Brief for Respondents 8. Parents, additionally, remain free to raise objections to specific material through the multilevel appeal system established by Board and state policies in Maryland, see supra, at 7–8, which the parents in this case apparently never tried to pursue.

The Court today subverts Maryland’s functioning democratic process, whistling past decades of precedent that recognizes the primacy and importance of local decisionmaking in this area of law. Members of this Court have oft and recently called for deference to the democratic process in other contexts. See, e.g., Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 269 (2022) (decrying decisions that “wrongly remov[e] an issue from the people and the democratic process”); United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (slip op., at 8) (“‘[T]he Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic processes’” (quoting Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432, 440 (1985))); Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U. S. 520, 556 (2024) (objecting that “[i]nstead of encouraging ‘productive dialogue’ and ‘experimentation’ through our democratic institutions, courts have frozen in place their own ‘formulas’ by ‘fiat’” and “interfered with ‘essential considerations of federalism,’ taking from the people and their elected leaders difficult questions traditionally ‘thought to be the[ir] province’”). Yet today, it seems, those principles do not apply to the Government when it designs curricula for a free public education.¹⁰

D

Unwilling to acknowledge the implications of its ruling, the majority insists that it has not announced a new “‘exposure’” theory of free exercise violations. Ante, at 27. The record in this case goes “far beyond mere ‘exposure,’” the majority claims, because “the storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender,” and because the “Board has specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree.” Ibid.

The majority, however, makes clear that reading aloud the books is sufficient under its test. The Court mandates that the schools “notify [petitioners] in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to permit [petitioners] to have their children excused from that instruction.” Ante, at 41 (emphasis added). The Court could only issue such a directive if any instructional use of the books in class, including merely reading them aloud, would prove intolerably “‘hostile’” to religious beliefs under the majority’s test. Ante, at 25.¹¹ Indeed, if the problem arose from the teacher guidance, rather than exposure to the books themselves, the Court could (and should) simply issue an injunction mandating the opportunity to opt out of the specific teacher statements deemed objectionable. See Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U. S. 753, 765 (1994) (“[An] injunction [should be] no broader than necessary to achieve its desired goals”).

As a result, what it comes down to under the majority’s test is that students will hear or read the text of books that “convey a particular viewpoint” that is “contrary to the religious principles” that a parent wishes to instill in their child. Ante, at 23, 27. That is mere exposure to objectionable ideas in its clearest form.¹²

The majority, in any event, badly misreads the Board’s teacher guidance. Far from directing teachers to “accuse [students] of being ‘hurtful’ when they express a degree of religious confusion,” ante, at 27; see also ante, at 10 (Thomas, J., concurring), the guidance is plainly designed to foster mutual civility and “respect.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 628a.

That purpose is clear throughout the materials. For instance, the guidance suggests that, in response to a child’s statement that, “[b]eing  \. \. \. gay, lesbian, queer, etc[.] is wrong and not allowed in my religion,” a teacher could respond: “I understand that is what you believe, but not everyone believes that. We don’t have to understand or support a person’s identity to treat them with respect and kindness  \. \. \. In any community, we’ll always find people with beliefs different from our own and that is okay—we can still show them respect.” Ibid.

That recommended response is careful to respect the religious views of students, while still encouraging civility and “kindness” towards others. Ibid. Those values, moreover, are precisely what the parents in this case say they endorse. See, e.g., id., at 529a (“We  \. \. \. believe that all humans  \. \. \. must be respected, regardless of the person’s faith, race, ethnic origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or social status”); id., at 536a (“We firmly reject that any student should be bullied or harassed for any reason, and we teach our son to treat all others with kindness and respect”); id., at 543a (“We believe that all persons should be treated with respect and dignity regardless of religion, race, sex, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other characteristics”).

To the extent students make comments that may be hurtful to classmates in the room, the guidance recommends teachers discourage such behavior. If a student says, “That’s so gay,” the guidance suggests a teacher may respond: “Regardless of how it’s intended, using gay to describe something negative reflects a long history of prejudice against LGBTQ+ people, so please don’t use it in that way.  \. \. \. You may not have meant to be hurtful: but when you use the word ‘gay’ in any way outside of its definition, it’s disrespectful.” Id., at 634a (emphasis added). Similarly, if a child says, “That’s weird. He can’t be a boy if he was born a girl,” the guidance encourages teachers to respond: “That comment is hurtful; we shouldn’t use negative words to talk about peoples’ identities.” Id., at 630a (emphasis added).

The majority reads these portions of the guidance to direct teachers to “accuse [students] of being ‘hurtful’ when they express” “confusion” based on their religious views. Ante, at 27 (quoting App. to Pet. for Cert. 630a). The majority only reaches that conclusion, however, by omitting portions of the student commentary to which the teachers are responding in the guidance. See id., at 630a (omitting “[t]hat’s so gay” and “that’s weird”). Those excised statements, the majority should presumably agree, could be hurtful to students in the classroom and thus warrant discouragement. Id., at 630a, 634a.

Comments like that, moreover, are sadly not uncommon in the Nation’s school system today. In a recent study, “the overwhelming majority” of LGBTQ students reported hearing homophobic language used by their peers, including “that’s so gay,” “dyke,” “faggot,” and “tranny.” J. G. Kosciw, C. Clark, & L. Menard, GLSEN, The 2021 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of LGBTQ+ Youth in Our Nation’s Schools xv–xvi (2022). Over two-thirds of LGBTQ students, moreover, reported feeling unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Ibid. Numerous other studies have found similar trends. See Brief for State of Maryland et al. as Amici Curiae 7–8, and nn. 7–17 (collecting additional studies).

The Board’s guidance to teachers thus simply seeks to anticipate the kinds of difficult interactions that might arise in response to greater inclusivity toward LGBTQ students.¹³ If that is sufficient to render classroom instruction “coercive,” ante, at 26, then mutual tolerance and respect may no longer have a place in public schools.14

The majority and concurrence also draw on news articles about comments that a Board member apparently made to reporters. See ante, at 10–11 (majority opinion); ante, at 9 (opinion of Thomas, J.). All Members of the majority have recognized before, however, that “statements by individual legislators” and members of similar decisionmaking entities are not appropriately attributed to the entire body. NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U. S. 288, 307 (2017); see also Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 692 (2018); Dobbs, 597 U. S., at 253–254 (“Even when an argument about legislative motive is backed by statements made by legislators who voted for a law, we have been reluctant to attribute those motives to the legislative body as a whole. ‘What motivates one legislator to make a speech about a statute is not necessarily what motivates  \. \. \. others to enact it’”). The statement by this individual Board member, apparently made outside any official proceeding, should not be treated differently, particularly in light of the Board’s consistent commitment to fostering mutual respect and civility, reflected in its official policies and guidance. See, e.g., App. to Pet. for Cert. 581a–589a, 669a–675a.¹⁵

Lastly, the majority is, of course, right to observe that not all parents can afford to send their children to private religious schools or to provide for homeschooling. See ante, at 32–33. Yet for public schools to function, it is inescapable that some students will be exposed to ideas and concepts that their parents may find objectionable on religious grounds. Indeed, this Court has long recognized that reality. See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 591 (1992) (observing students may be “expos[ed]” or “subjected during the course of their educations to ideas deemed offensive and irreligious”). To presume that public schools must be free of all such exposure is to presume public schools out of existence.

IV

Not content to invent a new standard for free exercise burdens, the majority goes on to consider an issue beyond the question presented and unaddressed by the Fourth Circuit below: whether the alleged burden in this case is “constitutionally permitted.” Ante, at 35.

That decision runs roughshod over the Court’s procedural practices. “As a general rule,” this Court “do[es] not decide issues outside the questions presented by the petition for certiorari,” Glover v. United States, 531 U. S. 198, 205 (2001), and it is fundamental to this Court’s role in our Nation’s judicial system that “we are a court of review, not of first view.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005).

The majority’s exercise in judicial maximalism is not without cost to our precedent, either. The majority recognizes, as it must, that “the government is generally free to place incidental burdens on religious exercise so long as it does so pursuant to a neutral policy that is generally applicable.” Ante, at 35. That bedrock principle of free exercise doctrine ensures that “‘professed doctrines of religious belief ’” are not “‘superior to the law of the land,’” for an “individual’s religious beliefs [may not] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law” or policy (in this case, the Board’s generally applicable rule against opt outs based on any reason). Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 878–879 (1990)). The majority nevertheless proceeds to announce that “the character of the burden” in this case “requires [it] to proceed differently.” Ante, at 36. Smith, the Court claims, “recognized Yoder as an exception to the general rule,” and “the burden in this case is of the exact same character as the burden in Yoder.” Ante, at 36–37.

The problem for the majority is that this is not what Smith said. Smith recognized that “[t]he only decisions in which we have held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action have involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections.” 494 U. S., at 881. Only in such “hybrid situation[s]” does the Court set aside its neutral and generally applicable inquiry. Id., at 882. Yoder, the Smith Court explained, was such a hybrid rights case because the parents relied on both their substantive due process rights to “direct the education of their children” and the Free Exercise Clause. 494 U. S., at 881, and n. 1 (discussing Yoder). Here, however, the Court’s analysis makes no mention of substantive due process rights or the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. It instead asserts, simply, that “the burden in this case is of the exact same character as the burden in Yoder.” Ante, at 37. But saying so does not make it so. To the contrary, as detailed above, the burden asserted in this case is vastly different from that identified in Yoder. See supra, at 14–17.

Finally, the Court’s application of strict scrutiny itself only underscores the folly of its new approach. Under strict scrutiny, the government bears the burden of demonstrating that its policy “advances ‘interests of the highest order’ and is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.” Fulton v. Philadelphia, 593 U. S. 522, 541 (2021) (quoting Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993)). The Court acknowledges that schools “have a ‘compelling interest in having an undisrupted school session conducive to the students’ learning.’” Ante, at 38 (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 119 (1972)). It concludes the Board’s policy permitting no opt outs, however, is not narrowly tailored to that interest. Ante, at 38–39. The Court notes that the Board permits opt outs from the “Family Life and Human Sexuality” program, a discrete health-education unit that MCPS offers in accordance with Maryland law. See ante, at 38–39; Code of Md. Regs., tit. 13a §§04.18.01(C)(1)(c), (D)(2) (2019). “If the Board can structure the ‘Family Life and Human Sexuality’ curriculum to more easily accommodate opt outs, it could structure instruction concerning the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks similarly,” the Court asserts. Ante, at 39.

That misguided assessment illustrates perfectly why judges should not be tasked with second-guessing questions of school administration. The Court assumes, with no “specialized knowledge and experience” in the field of “educational policy,” Rodriguez, 411 U. S., at 42, that MCPS can simply create a new unit of instruction on these particular Storybooks and thereby resolve any undue administrative burdens from managing opt outs. Ante, at 38–39; see also ante, at 11–12 (Thomas, J., concurring) (making this same point). What the majority elides, however, is that its ruling is not limited to a set of five storybooks. It applies, expressly, to “any other similar book,” ante, at 41, an amorphous category the Court declines to define, but which will presumably include all other books that contain “subtle” messages on gender and sexuality, even not involving LGBTQ characters, that the parents here (and others in the future) might find objectionable, ante, at 23.

The logic of the Court’s ruling will also apply to countless other topics, interactions, and activities that may conflict with a parent’s religious preferences. What of the parent who wants his child’s curriculum stripped of any mention of women working outside the home, sincerely averring that such activity conflicts with the family’s religious beliefs? It blinks reality to suggest that the simple solution for schools is to create new discrete units of instruction to cover any set of material to which a parent objects. The Court’s analysis thus reflects, all too well, the “obvious fact that courts are not school boards or legislatures, and are ill-equipped to determine the ‘necessity’ of discrete aspects of a State’s program of compulsory education.” Yoder, 406 U. S., at 235.¹⁶

What is more, the point of the Board’s program is to ensure that diverse groups of students are represented in reading materials across the curriculum. The Board cannot accomplish that purpose simply by consolidating all books involving LGBTQ characters into a single inclusivity hour and allowing opt outs, as the majority appears to believe. Ante, at 39. That approach would emphasize difference rather than sameness and foster exclusion rather than inclusion. The point of inclusivity is to use books representing a diversity of identities and viewpoints the same way one might use any other book, communicating that one’s LGBTQ classmates should be treated in the same manner as anyone else.

Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators. That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now.

The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent.