Federal Judge Sides With Massachusetts Father in Opt-Out Dispute Over LGBTQ-Themed Kindergarten Books

By Michael Phillips | NYBayNews

LEXINGTON, Mass. — A federal judge has handed a significant early victory to a Massachusetts father seeking to shield his young child from classroom materials that conflict with his religious beliefs, marking one of the first major applications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling on parental opt-out rights.

On December 31, 2025, F. Dennis Saylor IV, a judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, granted a preliminary injunction in Alan L. v. Lexington Public Schools, ordering Lexington Public Schools to make “reasonable efforts” to ensure a kindergarten student is not exposed to specific LGBTQ-themed storybooks without parental consent.

The ruling applies only to the child involved and does not require the district to remove the books for other students.

A Narrow—but Meaningful—Win for Parental Rights

The lawsuit was filed in October 2025 by a father identified as “Alan L.,” who described himself as a devout Christian with traditional religious beliefs on marriage, sexuality, and gender. His son attends Joseph Estabrook Elementary School.

The father argued that books depicting same-sex couples and Pride themes—introduced in the general classroom without notice or opt-out options—undermined his right to direct his child’s religious upbringing. He sought prior notice and the ability to excuse his son from exposure to those materials.

Judge Saylor found the father is likely to succeed on his First Amendment free-exercise claim, concluding that the school’s refusal to provide an opt-out likely fails strict scrutiny under current constitutional standards. The judge also determined that continued exposure could cause irreparable harm by interfering with religious instruction at home.

Books Covered by the Injunction

Under the court’s order, the district must make reasonable efforts to prevent the child’s exposure to ten specifically identified books, including:

• Families, Families, Families!
• All Are Welcome
• Uncle Bobby’s Wedding
• This Day in June
• Prince and Knight
• Stella Brings the Family

The injunction also extends to any additional LGBTQ-themed materials the father later identifies as objectionable.

Judge Saylor emphasized that the ruling is not a judgment on whether the books are appropriate for other children, noting that some are relatively innocuous. The legal issue, he wrote, is whether the school can compel exposure when it substantially burdens sincere religious beliefs.

Supreme Court Precedent Looms Large

The decision relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s June 2025 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a 6–3 decision holding that public schools must accommodate religious opt-out requests when instructional materials burden parental beliefs—without banning those materials for everyone else.

That case arose after a Maryland school district eliminated opt-outs for LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks, prompting a lawsuit by Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox parents. The Court ruled that a blanket no-opt-out policy violated the Free Exercise Clause.

The Lexington case is among the first to test how that precedent applies nationwide.

School District Pushes Back

Lexington school officials argue that the books simply depict diverse families and promote tolerance—not explicit sexual or gender instruction—and therefore should not trigger opt-out rights. They also note that the student involved has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and was likely not present for some of the disputed readings.

District attorneys warned that broad opt-out demands could impose heavy administrative burdens, requiring teachers to pre-screen classroom materials for potentially objectionable content, even in ambiguous cases.

Despite the injunction, the district has vowed to aggressively defend the case as it proceeds toward trial.

Broader Implications for Massachusetts Schools

Conservative legal groups backing the father, including the American Center for Law and Justice and the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center, hailed the ruling as a major affirmation of parental authority.

Critics, including some education advocates, warn the decision could open the door to widespread opt-outs that fragment classroom instruction or stigmatize certain families.

For now, the ruling is narrow—but consequential. It underscores that, post-Mahmoud, Massachusetts school districts must tread carefully when denying religious opt-out requests, especially for young children. As similar cases emerge across the country, the balance between inclusive education and parental rights is likely to remain a flashpoint well beyond this single Lexington classroom.