On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, holding that public school parents who objected on religious grounds to LGBTQ+-inclusive elementary curriculum are entitled to a preliminary injunction allowing them to opt their children out of instruction involving such materials. The Court’s decision underscores constitutional limits on public school curricular mandates when they substantially burden religious exercise, and it carries important implications for school district policies nationwide.
Background
The Montgomery County Board of Education (Maryland) introduced thirteen LGBTQ+-inclusive texts to be used in kindergarten through twelfth grade as part of the English Language Arts curriculum. At issue in the case are five storybooks for use in kindergarten through fifth grade classrooms. Initially, the district allowed parents to opt their children out of instruction involving these materials and provided notice of when the books would be used. The books contained affirming portrayals of same-sex marriage and gender identity diversity, which some parents argued conflicted with their religious beliefs.
Less than a year later, the district rescinded the opt-out policy, citing administrative challenges and potential stigma for students who opted out. Several parents from various religious backgrounds sued, arguing the policy violated their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
Supreme Court’s Holding and Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of the parents, concluding that the school district’s refusal to allow opt-outs substantially burdened the parents’ right to direct their children’s religious upbringing and imposed an unconstitutional burden on religious exercise.
Key points from the Court’s reasoning:
- Application of Yoder and Barnette: The Court reaffirmed Wisconsin v. Yoder and West Virginia v. Barnette, emphasizing that the Free Exercise Clause protects against both overt coercion (as in Barnette) and more subtle pressures that interfere with religious development (as in Yoder).
- Not Mere Exposure: The Court rejected the district’s characterization of the storybooks as neutral “exposure to ideas.” The books were found to present normative messages—particularly regarding same-sex marriage and gender identity—that contradicted the parents’ sincerely held religious beliefs.
- Strict Scrutiny: Because the policy burdened fundamental religious rights, the Court applied strict scrutiny and held that the school board had not shown that its interest in denying opt-outs was narrowly tailored or of the “highest order.” The fact that opt-outs still were allowed in other contexts (e.g., sex education) undermined the board’s claim of administrative necessity.
Irreparable Harm: The Court emphasized that forcing parents to choose between their faith and public education inflicted irreparable constitutional injury.
Impact of Injunctive Relief:
It should be noted that the Supreme Court’s decision did not address the underlying merits of the case. Rather, it found that the parents were entitled to an injunction while the lawsuit proceeds. Additionally, while the case remains pending, the Court stated that the Board should be ordered to do the following:
- Provide advance notice whenever the books in question or similar books will be used.
- Allow parents to excuse their children from related instruction.
Takeaways for School Districts
- Constitutional Obligations regarding Religious Objections:
-
- School districts must evaluate whether instructional content burdens religious exercise, especially in cases involving young children and contested moral teachings.
- Denying opt-outs in the face of sincere religious objections may violate the Free Exercise Clause.
- Curriculum Neutrality is Not Enough:
-
- Even if instructional materials are part of a facially neutral curriculum, districts must assess how the materials are presented and whether they implicitly or explicitly endorse specific value systems.
- The Role of Parental Notice and Accommodation:
-
- Providing notice and offering reasonable accommodations (e.g., opt-outs and other assignments) helps balance curricular goals with constitutional protections and reduces litigation risk.
- Policy Consistency Matters:
-
- Permitting opt-outs in some contexts (g., sex education) but denying them for similar or related content can undermine a district’s legal defense under strict scrutiny analysis.
- Training and Messaging Must Be Carefully Framed:
-
- Instructional materials and teacher training should avoid language or directives that compel students to affirm beliefs contrary to their own or their families.
- Alignment with Ohio Law:
-
- Providing parental notice and opt outs is largely aligned with Ohio’s Parents’ Bill of Rights, which requires boards of education to adopt and enforce policy language no later than July 1, 2025.
- Prohibitions against required affirmation of or ascription to certain beliefs, affiliations, ideals or principles by staff members and/or students are further addressed by Ohio law, which requires boards of education to have adopted policy language regarding applicable limitations no later than January 22, 2025.
For questions about your district’s curriculum policies, parental rights policies, or assistance navigating religious accommodation issues, please contact Christina Henagen Peer or any of our attorneys in the Weston Hurd Education Law Group.
###
About the Author
Christina Henagen Peer is a Weston Hurd Partner who focuses her practice on education law. She provides counsel to boards of education on numerous matters including student discipline, employee grievances, employee evaluation and discipline issues, the First Amendment, public records requests including Sunshine Laws, records retention policies, social media issues, residency and custody disputes, and the drafting and implementation of board policies. Her practice includes a significant focus on state and federal laws relating to the education of students with disabilities. Christina can be contacted via email at cpeer@westonhurd.com or by phone at 216-687-3372.
