As reported in previous posts on the Legal Ledger blog (here and here), 2025 has been a big year for decisions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States that affect school districts. Another major decision—Mahmoud v. Taylor—was issued last Friday, June 27.
The facts underlying the case began when the Montgomery County, Maryland, board of education (board) decided to include books that had "LGBTQ+-inclusive" content in the district's curriculum. Included were five storybooks for students in kindergarten through fifth grade that had "story lines focused on sexuality and gender." Initially, the board passed a policy requiring that notice be provided to parents when the storybooks would be taught and allowing them to opt their children out of the instruction. Based on concerns of classroom disruption and administrative burden, the board later rescinded the notice and opt-out policy.
Parents sued the district, claiming that the board’s policy interfered with their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion. They relied on the Supreme Court’s seminal decision Wisconsin v. Yoder, concluding that parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, which can be infringed upon by laws that pose a threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices parents wish to instill in their children. The parents sought preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the board from forcing their children, over the objection of their parents, to read, listen to or discuss the storybooks. The district court denied the preliminary injunction and the circuit court of appeals, in a split decision, agreed with the district court.
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court agreed with the parents and granted the preliminary injunction. The Court concluded that the parents’ religious exercise was unconstitutionally burdened by the board’s introduction of "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks for kindergarten through fifth-grade students and its decision to withhold parental notice and opt outs. The Court rejected the board’s argument that the rationale for using the books was merely to expose students to objectionable ideas or to teach mutual respect. Rather, it held that the books presented a particular viewpoint, and the board encouraged teachers to reinforce that viewpoint.
The Court stated that “public education is a public benefit” and the government cannot condition its availability on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise. Further, because parents have an obligation, enforceable by fine or imprisonment, to send their children to public school unless they find an adequate substitute they can afford, parents are not simply being asked to forego that public benefit.
Finally, the Court concluded that the district's curriculum and no-opt-out policy was not necessary to serve the district’s recognized compelling interest in maintaining a school environment that is safe and conducive to learning for all students. The Court directed the district to notify parents in advance whenever any of the books in question, or any similar book, is to be used in the classroom and allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.
The legal division is available, at (855) OSBA-LAW or (855) 672-2529, to answer general questions about this decision. If specific questions about curriculum on the basis of religious freedom are raised, boards should consult with their legal counsel.