In Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Maryland school board education policy preventing opt-outs for LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum was an unconstitutional burden on parents’ rights to free exercise of religion.
Background of the Case
The Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland added storybooks with LGBTQ+ themes into its curriculum for kindergarten through fifth-grade students.
Books such as “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” in which Uncle Bobby marries his same-sex partner, or “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,” in which a child treated as a girl explains that they are a boy, introduced LGBTQ+ characters and themes of acceptance.
The school board aimed to promote a “fully inclusive environment for all students.” The LGBTQ+ storybooks provide representation and inclusion of LGBTQ+ students and their families and promote equity and respect for diverse gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.
Initially, under the school district’s “Guidelines for Respecting Religious Diversity,” there was a notice and opt-out option where parents could excuse their children from such instruction. However, a year later, they reversed their notice and opt-out policy because the increased requests for opt-outs caused significant disruptions to the classroom environment.
Parents from diverse religious backgrounds, such as Christian, Muslim, and Ukrainian Orthodox, sued the school district. They objected to exposing their children to content that conflicts with their religious beliefs and the refusal to allow for opt-outs to instruction involving LGBTQ+ books. They point to their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, in which the government (in this case, the public school board) cannot interfere with their religious practices and beliefs.
The parents requested a preliminary injunction. However, the district court denied it and dismissed the parents’ free exercise claims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case.
The Supreme Court’s Review
The Court focused heavily on three prior cases:
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
In Pierce, the Supreme Court rejected an Oregon law requiring all children to attend public schools. This established the rule that parents had the right to direct their children’s upbringing and education, such as sending their children to religious or private schools. The Court extended this precedent in Mahmoud to include the right for parents to opt out of specific instruction if it conflicted with their religious beliefs.
The Barnette case prohibited public school students from being compelled to salute the flag or recite the “Pledge of Allegiance.” The case was brought by Jehovah’s Witnesses, who sought to prevent the practice as it was contrary to their religious beliefs.
Today’s Supreme Court recognized that Barnette was an “early example” that public schools should not interfere with a student’s religious upbringing or coerce behavior that goes against their religious beliefs. By not providing an opt-out for LGBTQ+ instruction, they argued that the Maryland school district’s policy could be coercive.
Yoder held that parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children and that the government cannot interfere with their religious beliefs and practices. The case focused on Wisconsin’s law requiring students to attend school until age 16. Amish parents sued, claiming the law violated their right to free exercise of religion and compelled the students to be in an “environment hostile to Amish beliefs.”
The Court drew a parallel from the Yoder case to Mahmoud, finding that exposing a student to beliefs contrary to their parents' religious beliefs undermines parental rights.
The Decision and the Dissent
The Court held that such instruction and prevention of opt-out policies should be subject to strict scrutiny because they interfere with a parent’s right to direct their religious upbringing. They issued a preliminary injunction on the board’s policy. Until there is an appellate review, Montgomery County public schools must notify parents of LGBTQ+ instruction and provide a means for them to excuse their children.
The Court ruled 6-3, with Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote the dissent.
The dissent argued that exposure to different ideas does not amount to coercion and does not infringe on religious rights. Further, Justice Sotomayor points out that public schools should expose students to different ideas and beliefs because they live in a diverse society that includes LGBTQ+ and transgender citizens. She warned that the decision can be disruptive in schools, where parents can object to any instruction they do not find acceptable.
Related Resources
- Religious Accommodation for Students (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- Compulsory Education Law Exemptions and Court Cases (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- School Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance: Background (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
