On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland likely violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by requiring elementary school students to participate in instruction involving LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks without giving parents advance notice or an opportunity to opt out. The District had added more than 22 books featuring LGBTQ+ themes to its English Language Arts curriculum. When the new books were first introduced, the District allowed parents to receive notice and opt their children out of those lessons. In March 2023, the Board reversed this policy and eliminated the notice and opt-out options. The District cited concerns about high student absenteeism, infeasibility of managing numerous opt-outs, and potential stigmatization and isolation of individuals represented in the books.
A group of parents from diverse religious backgrounds filed suit, arguing that the District’s policy forced their children to engage with material that contradicted their religious beliefs, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause and Due Process Clause. The district court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the parents’ request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the parents had not shown a cognizable burden on their religious exercise.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and reversed. It found that the parents had shown a likelihood of success on their Free Exercise claim and were entitled to a preliminary injunction. According to the Court, the District’s policy substantially interfered with the parents’ ability to guide their children’s religious development and created psychological pressure on children to conform to beliefs contrary to those of their families. The Court also pointed out that the District continued to allow opt-outs in other areas, including health instruction under the “Family Life and Human Sexuality” unit. That inconsistency, the Court said, undermined the district’s claim that eliminating opt-outs served a compelling interest. The case now returns to the lower courts for further proceedings.
You can read more about this case in our Special Bulletin.
Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) ___U.S.___ ..