On June 27, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, addressing whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they require elementary students to participate in instruction related to gender and sexuality without notice or an option to opt out.
Background
In October 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education (Board) approved more than 22 LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks for use in the English Language Arts curriculum across Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland. The selected books addressed sexual orientation and gender identity and included titles such as Pride Puppy! for pre-K students and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope for grades K-5. Initially, MCPS allowed parents to receive advance notice and to opt their children out of instruction involving these materials.
That changed in March 2023, when the Board eliminated the opt-out policy and discontinued providing notice, citing administrative challenges, high absenteeism, and concerns about stigmatization. Existing opt-outs were honored through the end of the 2022–23 school year.
A group of parents with diverse religious beliefs filed suit, alleging that requiring their young children to participate in this instruction violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The parents sought a preliminary injunction requiring MCPS to restore the notice and opt-out options while the case proceeded.
Lower Court Rulings
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied the motion for preliminary injunction, holding that the parents failed to show that the policy placed a cognizable burden on their religious exercise. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the parents had not demonstrated that exposure to different views amounted to pressure to abandon their beliefs.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court reversed. The parents argued that, under Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Free Exercise Clause protects parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing and that compelling participation in instruction contradicting their beliefs imposed a substantial burden. They also argued that the Board’s policy was not neutral or generally applicable under Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), and therefore should be subject to strict scrutiny.
MCPS contended that the parents had not shown coercion or compulsion and that, absent such a showing, the Court’s inquiry should end. It also argued that any further review should take place in the lower courts.
The Supreme Court held that the parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction. The Court found that the parents were likely to succeed on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest supported granting the injunction. Specifically, the Court held that the policy substantially interfered with the parents’ efforts to guide their children’s religious development, much like the law struck down in Yoder, where Amish families were required to send children to public high schools despite religious objections.
The Court rejected MCPS’s argument that the materials were simply about respect and inclusion. Instead, it found that the books promoted a specific viewpoint on same-sex marriage and gender identity and that teachers were directed to affirm that viewpoint and discipline students who disagreed. The Court emphasized that the key question is whether the instruction “substantially interferes” with the religious development of the child, not whether it merely introduces conflicting ideas.
Importantly, the Court concluded that even facially neutral and generally applicable policies are subject to strict scrutiny when they impose this kind of burden on religious exercise. To defend its policy, MCPS must now show that it serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The Court noted that the continued availability of opt-outs in other parts of the curriculum, including health education, weakened the District’s argument that the policy was necessary to maintain a safe and inclusive learning environment.
In dissent, several Justices warned that the decision may place significant burdens on public schools by requiring them to provide advance notice and opt-outs for any material that could conflict with a student’s or family’s religious beliefs.
Note: LCW’s full Special Bulletin on this case can be found here. This decision underscores the importance of carefully considering how curricular content intersects with families’ religious beliefs. While private schools are not bound by the First Amendment in the same way as public schools, schools should be aware that these types of challenges may become more common following the Supreme Court’s decision.