On June 27, 2025, the United States Supreme Court decided Mahmoud v. Taylor. This case analyzes whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children’s exposure to materials regarding gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious beliefs and without providing the parents notice or opportunity to opt out of such instruction.
Background
In October 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education (“Board”) of Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland announced the approval of over 22 LGBTQ+ inclusive texts as part of the English Language Arts Curriculum for use in Montgomery County Public Schools. These books featured characters and themes related to sexual orientation and gender identity, including books like “Pride Puppy!” for pre-K students and the Head Start Program and “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope” for K-5 students.[1] Initially, the Board allowed parents to receive notice and opt their children out of lessons involving these books.
However, in March 2023, the Board reversed this policy and eliminated the notice and opt-out options. MCPS grandfathered in existing opt-out requests through the end of the 2022-2023 academic year. MCPS cited concerns about high student absenteeism, infeasibility of managing numerous opt-outs, and potential stigmatization and isolation of individuals represented in the books.
Several parents (or, the “Parents”) with diverse religious beliefs sued the Board and argued that compelling their elementary-age children to participate in instruction contrary to their parent’s religious convictions violated, among other things, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Parents sought a preliminary injunction based only on the alleged violations of the Free Exercise Clause and Due Process Clause to require the Board to provide notice and an opt-out option.
Lower Court Rulings
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland (“District Court”) denied the parents’ motion for preliminary injunction, ruling that Parents failed to demonstrate a cognizable burden to the free exercise of their religion or establish that any of their claims are likely to succeed on the merits.
The Parents then filed, an appeal of the District Court’s ruling prior to the conclusion of the District Court’s trial, also known as an interlocutory appeal; however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals considered the Parents’ broad claim joined with the extremely limited record and concluded that the parents had not shown a cognizable burden to support their free exercise claim. Namely, the Fourth Circuit found that simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires.[2]
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Parents appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that under Wisconsin v. Yoder,406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Free Exercise Clause prohibits government schools from “substantially interfering with the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.” The Supreme Court in Yoder held that a Wisconsin law requiring school attendance unduly burdened the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by forcing Amish parents to send their children to public school after the eighth grade, which violated core Amish beliefs requiring them to remain “aloof from the world.”
In their appeal, the Parents also argued that the Board’s ban on opt-outs and notice are not generally applicable or neutral under Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), and are therefore subject to strict scrutiny review. The Supreme Court in Lukumi held that ordinances prohibiting animal sacrifice violated the Free Exercise Clause because they were not neutral nor of general application and stated that the sole reasons for imposing burdens of the law must be secular, and not as mechanisms, overt or disguised, to persecute or oppress a religion or its practices.
MCPS argued that the Parents could not establish the threshold element of a Free Exercise claim – coercion, or compulsion or pressure to alter one’s religious convictions or practice. MCPS also argued that Plaintiff’s failure to show a cognizable burden should end the Court’s inquiry. However, if the Court finds a cognizable burden, it should return the case back down to the lower courts that initially heard this case, to determine whether MCPS’s policy to remove opt out and notice is neutral and generally applicable. This is because determining whether a law is neutral and generally applicable is a separate inquiry that a court undertakes after determining that the policy burdens sincere religious practice.
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court released their decision and held that the parents challenging the Board’s introduction of these LGBTQ+ inclusive storybook and the Board’s decision to withhold opt outs are entitled to a preliminary injunction. This injunction should permit the parents to have their children excused from instruction related to the storybooks while the lawsuit proceeds. The Court determined that the parents made the requisite showing that 1) they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Board’s polices unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise; 2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; 3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and 4) an injunction would be in the public interest. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
Specifically, the Court found that the Board’s practices of introducing the storybooks and forbidding notice and opt-outs substantially interferes with the religious development of the parents’ children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable. Similar to the compulsory high school education considered in Yoder, these books impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are “hostile” to their parents’ religious beliefs. These books also exert upon children a psychological “pressure to conform” to their specific viewpoints. The Court reasoned that Yoder embodies a robust principle of general applicability.
None of the counterarguments raised by MCPS or the lower courts gave the Court any reason to doubt the existence of a burden on religious exercise. The Court did not agree that these books were mere exposure to objectionable ideas or as lessons in mutual respect, since the majority found the storybooks unmistakenly convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender and the Board specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and reprimand any children who disagree.
The Court reasoned that the question in cases of this kind is whether the educational requirement or curriculum at issue would “substantially interfere[e] with the religious development” of the child, or pose “a very real threat of undermining” the religious beliefs and practices the parents wish to instill in the child. The touchstone for determining whether the line is crossed is not whether a requirement or curriculum could be characterized as “exposure.”
Finally, according to the Court, the character of this burden, similar to that in Yoder, is subject to strict scrutiny, regardless of whether the law is neutral or generally applicable. According to the Court, Yoder is a case “in which [the Court] has held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action.” In order to survive strict scrutiny, MCPS must demonstrate that its policy advances “interests of the highest order” and is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. The Court noted that he Board’s conduct in continuing to permit opt outs in a variety of other circumstances, such as for the health unit titled the “Family Life and Human Sexuality” program, undermines its assertion that the no-opt-out policy is necessary to serve the interest in maintaining a school environment that is safe and conducive to learning for every student.
The Court’s dissent warned that the damage to America’s public education system will be profound following this ruling, since requiring schools to provide advance notice and opt out opportunities for every book, presentation, or field trip where students may encounter materials that conflict with their parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools.
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore attorneys are closely monitoring developments in relation to this Special Bulletin and are able to advise on the impact this could have on your organization. If you have any questions about this issue, please contact our Los Angeles, San Francisco, Fresno, San Diego, or Sacramento office.
[1] This lawsuit initially concerned seven books: one approved for pre-K and Head Start students and six approved for grades K-5. However, the District removed one pre-K book and one K-5 book due to content concerns.
[2] This case was titled Mahmoud v. McKnight during its District Court and Appellate Court stages, as Monifa B. McKnight was the predecessor of MCPS superintendent Thomas W. Taylor.