Federal Judge Lets Massachusetts Father Shield Kindergartener From LGBTQ+ Materials

A federal judge has temporarily barred Lexington Public Schools in Massachusetts from exposing a kindergarten student to any classroom materials that “depict or describe LGBTQ+ characters, relationships, or activities, or LGBTQ+ political or social advocacy, ” granting a significant early victory to a Christian father challenging the district’s inclusive curriculum practices.

The case was brought by a Lexington parent identified in court documents as “Alan L. ,” who describes himself as a devout Christian holding a biblical view of marriage, gender, and sexuality. According to the complaint, he believes he—not the state—must exclusively shape his child’s moral and spiritual formation from a Christian worldview and therefore sought to opt his son, “J. L. ,” out of any material that “normalizes” LGBTQ+ relationships.

Court filings show that Alan L. submitted an opt‑out request at the beginning of the 2025–2026 school year, asking that his five‑year‑old be excluded from lessons and books that, in his view, conflict with his religious beliefs about sexuality and gender. Lexington Public Schools responded that the request was too vague and pointed to an existing policy that allows opt‑outs only from curriculum that “primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues. ”

The father, represented by attorneys from the Massachusetts Family Institute and the American Center for Law and Justice, sued the district, the school committee, Superintendent Julie Hackett, Joseph Estabrook Elementary School principal Gerardo Martinez, and Director of Elementary Education Andrea So on October 17, 2025, alleging that officials stalled his request and burdened his constitutional right to direct his child’s religious upbringing. His attorneys argue that any classroom material depicting same‑gender parents or other LGBTQ+ people amounts to moral instruction that conflicts with his Christian convictions.

On November 6, 2025, the legal team filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking a court order to prevent the district from exposing the child to the contested content while the case proceeds. Lexington Public Schools opposed the motion on November 19, and a hearing was held on December 12 before U. S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. Judge Saylor granted the preliminary injunction on December 30, 2025.

The injunction specifically bars the district from providing J. L. with materials that depict or describe LGBTQ+ characters, relationships, or activities, including several children’s books identified in the lawsuit such as “Families, Families, Families! ” and “All Are Welcome. ” Those titles are widely used in elementary schools to portray diverse family structures, including same‑gender parents, and to communicate that all children and families belong in the school community.

Judge Saylor’s order is notable for its reliance on the 2025 U. S. Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which recognized that parents may opt their children out of LGBTQ+-themed instruction when such content conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs. In Mahmoud, the Court framed such opt‑outs as part of a long‑standing fundamental right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing and education.

Sam Whiting, the father’s attorney with the Massachusetts Family Institute, celebrated the decision as “a major victory for families of faith not just in Lexington, but across Massachusetts, ” saying it puts “public school districts on notice that they cannot ignore constitutional protections for parents without facing significant liability. ” Whiting and co‑counsel from the American Center for Law and Justice have stated they aim to “set a precedent that will benefit all Massachusetts families” and will continue litigating to secure permanent relief.

Attorneys for Lexington Public Schools argue that the district was already complying with state requirements and that the requested opt‑out goes far beyond what the law contemplates. In a court affidavit, Director of Elementary Education Andrea So said it would be a significant hardship to parse all classroom materials and pull J. L. from any lesson that “depict in any manner” LGBTQ+ relationships, lifestyles, or identities, calling the task highly subjective and burdensome for educators. District attorney Sasha Gill noted that the books at issue were not part of an LGBTQ‑specific curriculum and that it was not even clear J. L. was present when they were read aloud, given that he spends much of his school day outside the general‑education classroom under an Individualized Education Program and Behavior Intervention Plan.

Lexington’s legal team has signaled it will “aggressively” defend the district’s policies as the case moves forward, emphasizing that inclusive classroom materials help reflect the diversity of families served by the public schools, including LGBTQ+ parents and children. Advocates for LGBTQ+ students nationally have warned that broad opt‑out regimes can stigmatize queer families by treating their existence as inherently controversial or inappropriate for children, even when no sexual content is involved.

The Lexington dispute is unfolding against a wider legal backdrop in which courts are weighing the balance between parental religious objections and the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ students. In a separate California case, an appellate panel recently paused a ruling that had allowed teachers to inform parents of a student’s gender identity without the student’s consent, questioning whether the Mahmoud v. Taylor decision was being stretched too far outside the curriculum context. Legal experts say these cases together could shape how far schools must go to accommodate parental demands that conflict with inclusive practices aimed at supporting LGBTQ+ students and families.

For now, the preliminary injunction in Massachusetts applies only to one child in one district, and the underlying lawsuit still has to be fully litigated. But with conservative legal organizations already touting the ruling as a model, LGBTQ+ advocates and educators are watching closely to see whether similar challenges will emerge that seek to limit even the basic acknowledgment that LGBTQ+ people and families exist in public school classrooms.