Religious Freedom and Parental Choice -- The Victory of the Mahmoud v. Taylor Ruling

The Supreme Court's ruling on the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor indicates a crucial step in the right direction when it comes to the right for parents to choose what their children are taught in class.

Photo by CDC on Unsplash

On June 27th, the Supreme Court decided Mahmoud et al. v. Taylor et al., giving conservative and right-wing education scholars a major victory in the K–12 realm. In their landmark decision, the Court sided with the petitioners (a group of parents from Maryland and associated interest groups under Tamer Mahmoud et al.), who argued that the Montgomery County Board of Education (Thomas W. Taylor et al.) violated their constitutional rights by rescinding an opt-out option. This option had allowed parents to remove their children during readings of a set of LGBTQIA+-themed books.

Interestingly, the Board had initially permitted any concerned parent in the district to withdraw their student(s) from classes where these books were read and discussed. However, less than a year after introducing the opt-out policy, the Board reversed its position, citing that it “could not accommodate the growing number of opt-out requests without causing significant disruptions to the classroom environment” (App. to Pet. for Cert. 607a). Moreover, the Board explicitly instructed teachers that they could not exclude the materials from their classrooms, opening a broader debate about teacher autonomy. The Board also hosted a professional development program the previous summer, during which teachers were instructed on how to reframe children’s responses to LGBTQIA+ content to promote a singular narrative.

Concerned parents began pleading their case at school board meetings, only to be repeatedly dismissed. This led the parents and associated interest groups to file a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. They argued that, by removing the opt-out option, the Board had violated their First Amendment rights to practice their religion freely under the Free Exercise Clause.

As it relates to freedom of religion, the petitioning group argued that the content of these books posed a “very real threat of undermining” personal religious beliefs and practices they wished to pass on to their children. For example, some parents maintained that it is a religious belief that gender and sex are the same, while the curriculum asserted that gender and sex are distinct. Hence, they argued that this content contradicted their religious views in a public school setting.

Moreover, the parents argued that the LGBTQIA+ content psychologically coerced students to “conform” to standards that were “hostile” to their beliefs. In addressing this claim, the Court stated, “The storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender. And the Board has specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. That goes beyond mere ‘exposure’” (p. 4).

Ultimately, in a 6–3 decision delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court reversed the rulings of the lower courts, declaring that parents in the county are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the Board’s decision to eliminate opt-outs, writing:

“As we have explained, the storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender. And the Board has specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. That goes far beyond mere ‘exposure’...” (p. 27)

He later continued:

“The Board’s policies, like the compulsory-attendance requirement in Yoder, ‘substantially interfer[e] with the religious development’ of the parents’ children” (p. 37).

Essentially, the Court ruled that, for the time being, the Board must allow parents to opt their children out of classroom instruction that includes LGBTQIA+ content, as it may impede the religious development of both parents and students.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the content used in the classroom did not violate religious identities, as it neither denounced nor criticized those beliefs. She asserted that the LGBTQIA+ materials presented a different perspective—not one that rejected the petitioners’ beliefs, but one that simply did not align with them.

On page 10, she writes, “Simply being exposed to beliefs contrary to your own does not ‘prohibi[t]’ the ‘free exercise’ of your religion.” Later, she warns of the potential consequences of this decision—namely, the burden it could place on school staff as parents begin to opt their children out of any and all content with which they disagree, citing “religious beliefs” as justification (see page 40).

Although this ruling is a victory for right-wing educators, much remains unresolved. As Justice Sotomayor correctly noted, there is considerable ambiguity regarding what content parents may opt out of, which could create significant challenges for educators and administrators. However, such challenges may be necessary as courts begin to clarify what constitutes content that violates religious freedom. This case will not exist in a vacuum. It is likely that many more cases will follow, seeking to define religious freedom in educational contexts and provide clearer guidance for administrators and educators.

This decision, nevertheless, represents a step in the right direction for the field of education. For too long, so-called "experts" (such as administrators and curriculum designers) have wielded outsized influence over curriculum design and implementation, often neglecting the values and beliefs of parents. Parents have been—and continue to be—the primary architects of their children's education and deserve the right to decide what their children are taught, whether in public or private schools.

Unfortunately, while this decision sets a precedent for what parents can opt out of, it does not address what they can opt into. For instance, if parents object to LGBTQIA+ content in the classroom, they now have the right to remove their child. However, they do not have the right to request that their child be placed in an additional math or English class as an alternative. Instead, the burden falls on administrators to devise substitute activities. Most likely, students will simply be supervised in another classroom during the time the contested material is taught. This, however, results in lost instructional time, especially for K–5 students who benefit from consistent learning routines.

In a perfect world, parents would have the time and resources to help design their children’s education. But in reality, overworked and under-resourced educators may find it difficult to create individualized curricula for each student opted out. As a solution, I propose that administrators and teachers collaborate with a coalition of parents (such as representatives from the petitioners) to develop alternative materials. Over the summer, a teacher could present several reading options for parents to review. For example:

• Book A: A story featuring an LGBTQIA+ relationship

• Book B: A story featuring a heterosexual relationship

• Book C: A story about non-romantic relationships, such as friendship

This approach would allow parents to choose what aligns with their values, while ensuring that teachers are not relegated to babysitting students who have been opted out of valuable learning time. In the classroom, students could discuss their respective books in smaller groups. Critics may argue that students will still talk about their readings outside of class and that students exposed to Book B might become curious about Book A. To that I say: good. We’ve seen the harmful effects of groupthink and of one-sided narratives dominating classroom discourse. To some extent, Justice Sotomayor is right because being exposed to ideas different from your own does not necessarily threaten your identity.

What makes America great is the free exchange of competing ideas. These ideas must circulate, clash, and contradict one another to foster real discussion and learning. At the same time, parents reserve the right to determine when—and if—certain ideas are introduced to their children. The decision by the Supreme Court marks a positive shift toward empowering parents—the most invested stakeholders in their children’s education—to have a meaningful say in what their children are taught. I firmly believe that teachers deserve autonomy in the classroom. However, at the end of the day, a parent knows what’s best for their child—even if the teacher, the administration, you, or I might disagree.