The Supreme Court Is Afraid of Queer Joy

Let's Show Them How Powerful It Is

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision saying that parents have the right to opt out their children before LGBTQ+-inclusive books are read in public school classrooms is awful for many reasons. I want to focus here, though, on one that may feel amorphous but that should be at the heart of our response: its attack on queer joy.

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, began after Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland added several optional LGBTQ+-inclusive picture books to its supplemental curriculum in 2022. A group of parents brought a lawsuit against MCPS in 2023, claiming that it violated their religious freedom by not giving them the chance to opt out their children from classroom readings of the books.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing the decision for the 6-3 court, said that the nine picture books in the case "are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected." This is enough, he said, to unconstitutionally undermine "the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill."

As an example, Alito cited "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," by Sarah Brannen. The story involves a girl worried that her favorite uncle won't have time for her after he gets married. Alito wrote, "It is significant that this book does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice. Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated." Similarly, he said that "Prince & Knight," by Daniel Haack, "clearly conveys the message that same-sex marriage should be accepted by all as a cause for celebration." He is off-base in that neither book is celebrating the "acceptance of same-sex marriage" per se, but rather the particular characters' marriages—but regardless, he concluded that young children will likely see the celebrations as a "good thing," which undermines their parents' religious freedom.

As Katherine Locke, author of another book in the case ("What Are Your Words?") wondered after the ruling, would Alito have allowed a book "depicting everyone sad and despondent at a same-sex marriage"? (Huffington Post, June 30, 2025).

Alito's bias against queer joy appears, too, in his discussion of "Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope," by Jodie Patterson, about a transgender boy socially transitioning with the support of his family. Alito's concern is that the book views gender transition in a positive light and "present[s] a contrary view as something to be reprimanded." His example is a scene where the main character's brother says, "You can't become a boy. You have to be born one," and the mother replies, "Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love." As I read it, though, that's hardly a "reprimand" (the book in fact says the mom whispers it, suggesting a gentle tone), but simply a mother's attempt to nurture love.

Alito, however, said these books of celebration and love "impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are 'hostile' to their parents' religious beliefs." By his logic, then, I as a Jewish parent should be allowed to opt-out my son from a classroom reading of "Green Eggs and Ham," by Dr. Seuss, which ends with the protagonist joyfully consuming the titular eggs and (non-kosher) ham. That seems ridiculous.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote similarly in her dissent, noting that if the majority says the books' "normative" messages should be allowed as reasons for parental opt-outs, "then it is hard to say what will not." She asked, "How many children's books, after all, end with a joyous wedding and the couple living happily ever after?" And she astutely noted, "LGBTQ people exist.... Eliminating books depicting LGBTQ individuals as happily accepted by their families will not eliminate student exposure to that concept."

At least two authors of books in the case have also noted the majority's attack on queer joy, including Locke and Charlotte Sullivan Wild, author of "Love, Violet." Wild wrote after the ruling, "Justice Alito deems our books 'coercive' because of their joy.... A joyful gay wedding must be offensive if one believes that happiness is only for people in heterosexual marriages. But children come from many kinds of families and deserve books about all of them" (Once Upon a Ban, June 30, 2025).

Joy also points the way forward. As Locke wrote, the queer joy in these books "is also what's getting us authors and illustrators through this moment—and what keeps us galvanized in the fight ahead of us." The stories help kids to see themselves and their classmates, they explained, asserting, "These books are joyous, yes, and joy is powerful. That's why close-minded people fear it so much. Joy is nectar. Joy is life. And joy will keep the light burning, even in these dark times."

Joy can motivate and guide the rest of us, too, as we create joyful spaces for LGBTQ+ youth and those with LGBTQ+ parents and family members, seek out and share the many children's books of queer joy and celebration, tell local educators and elected officials the real-life stories of how the books have brought joy to young people, and join or build joyful communities with others doing this work. Joy alone is not enough to create the world we want to see—but joy can fuel our efforts and remind us of a key goal: to give every child a life of celebration, joy, and love.

Dana Rudolph is the founder and publisher of Mombian (mombian.com), a two-time GLAAD Media Award-winning blog for LGBTQ+ parents plus a searchable database of 1,800+ LGBTQ+ family books.