On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court appeared sympathetic to a group of religious Maryland parents asking to opt their children out of a mandated LGBT curricula at school.
The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor, and the plaintiffs are parents from diverse religious backgrounds in Montgomery County, Maryland, including Muslim, Catholic, Ukrainian Orthodox and Jewish families.
The families contend the school district’s policy, which exposes the students to LGBT curriculum without an opt-out provision, infringes on their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.
The parents maintain that the curriculum conflicts with their religious teachings on gender and sexuality and are asking the Court to require the school district offer an opt-out.
Background
In 2022, Mongomery County Public Schools in Maryland approved the use of several LGBT children’s books in preschool through 12th grade language arts curricula.
At first, parents were notified and given the option to opt their children out of that material. However, in 2023, the school district revised its policies, eliminating the opt-out option. due to “administrative challenges.”
In response, a multi-faith parent group sued the school board and the superintendent, arguing their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was being infringed.
The parent group lost in both lower courts, which held that exposure to differing viewpoints in public education does not constitute a violation of religious freedom.
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider the case and consider the following question: “Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?”
Supreme Court Oral Argument
Oral arguments were heard on April 22, 2025. The conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the parents’ position, suggesting the lack of an opt-out provision could infringe on their religious freedom.
Justice Alito questioned whether exposure to storybook narratives burdens religious exercise by sending a clear moral message that some religious parents might find objectionable.
Justice Gorsuch was more narrowly focused on whether the school board’s actions demonstrated discrimination towards religious beliefs. He questioned if the lack of an opt-out provision indicated hostility towards religious parents.
Justice Kavanaugh was concerned about the importance of accommodating religious beliefs in education. He mentioned that the goal of the Court’s religious precedents is to look for a win/win situation where religious beliefs are respected and accommodated while the school district pursues its goals.
Justice Thomas questioned whether the books were merely in the room or being used as a teaching tool that would burden religious exercise by compelling student participation.
Justice Barrett’s questions focused on whether the material constitutes exposure or coercion, and Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the importance of neutrality and fairness, questioning whether the policy change shows a lack of respect for religious diversity.
The more liberal justices expressed concern that granting opt-outs might lead to widespread exemptions from the curriculum and undermine the district’s education efforts.
Implications
A ruling in favor of parents could set precedent for broader religious exemptions and expand parental rights in public schools. It could also establish precedent preventing districts from incorporating LGBT materials into subjects like ELA, which don’t usually include opt-out provisions
Alternatively, if a parent’s right to opt their children out of LGBT material is not required by the Court for language arts classes, it’s possible LGBT activists will expand their scope and influence through curricula in that subject nationwide.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in this case by July 2025.
Image from Getty.
