The Supreme Court’s conservative majority handed a victory to parents’ religious rights in Mahmoud v. Taylor on Friday, June 27, ruling that Montgomery County Public Schools violated their rights by barring parents from opting their children out of LGBTQ+ curriculum.
In late 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education adopted a new curriculum that included topics such as gender, sexual orientation, race, and body ability. This policy required certain LGBTQ-inclusive books to be available for elementary school-aged students.
When this curriculum was first introduced, parents were allowed to exempt their children from instruction on the basis of religious objections. A year later, the Montgomery Board of Education reversed this decision, eliminating the opt-out policy.
Lead plaintiffs, Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, challenged this reversal and filed a lawsuit against Montgomery County Public Schools in May 2023. They argued that the required LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum violated their Islamic faith and constitutional right to free religious exercise.
Later joined by other parents, the plaintiffs formed Kids First, an association of parents and teachers advocating for child exemption in any curriculum relating to human sexuality. Alongside the Becket Fund, Kids First supported Mahmoud v Taylor through legal and public education efforts.
The question before the court was whether public schools violate parental rights by requiring elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality without the opportunity to opt out for religious reasons.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, stated that this curriculum was designed to “disrupt” children’s thinking about sexuality and gender and “places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion.”
The Court also ordered the Montgomery Board of Education to provide advance notice to parents whenever any of the contested books are used in school. Additionally, the Board must honor parents’ requests to opt their children out of that instruction.
In her 38-page dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that this ruling would cause “chaos” in the public school system. “Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators,” Sotomayor wrote.
The Montgomery County Education Association called the ruling a “disappointment,” commenting that the Supreme Court’s decision does a “grave disservice” to their school community.
The curriculum at the heart of this case was developed to promote inclusion and affirm diverse families within the Montgomery community. Advocates for inclusive education have expressed concern that the ruling may contribute to a more fragmented educational experience for students and potentially reduce exposure to diverse perspectives.
Legal scholars and civil rights groups have noted that this decision may pave the way for additional challenges to inclusive curricula, not only those relating to LGBTQ+ topics, but possibly in areas such as women’s history, civil rights, and science education. The ruling highlights a shifting legal landscape, where parental religious objections may increasingly shape public school policy.
This ruling marks a significant shift in the balance between religious liberty and inclusive public education. While the Court framed the decision as a protection of religious liberty, it also raises complex questions about how public education can balance religious freedom with the goal of fostering understanding, inclusion, and empathy in diverse school communities.
Mahmoud v. Taylor is not just a case about curriculum; it’s a signal of the Court’s growing willingness to reshape the boundaries of public education in response to cultural and religious pressures.
