| The United States Supreme Court recently ruled against a Maryland Board of Education, holding that school districts must provide parents notice and the option to decline instruction that may “substantially interfere” with a student’s religious development.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), a group of parents sued a school board after being denied the opportunity to “opt out” of curriculum which included “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks and themes. Initially, the Board notified parents and provided them the option to remove the student, but the Board changed its position during the school year.
The Board reasoned the growing volume of opt-out requests were disruptive to the classroom environment. It also worried that, by allowing some students to leave the classroom when the materials were being used, other students would attach a social stigma to the topic. The Board further argued the books were mere “exposure to objectionable ideas” and lessons in “mutual respect.” As a result, it stopped notifying parents when the curriculum was used and did not give parents an option to remove a child from the class when the books were being taught.
The parents argued that the exposure to material that conflicted with their religious beliefs placed an unconstitutional burden on their right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. The parents sought an injunction to prohibit the Board from forcing their children and other students to read, listen to, or discuss the stories, if a parent objected.
The Supreme Court reviewed previous decisions involving a parent’s rights in the context of a school setting. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972), the Court recognized the right of a family to withdraw their children from all conventional schooling after finding the law requiring children to attend school past the age of eight grade violated the beliefs of Amish parents. In a more recent case, the Court held that, because public education is a public benefit, the government cannot “condition” its “availability” on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise. See Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. 449, 462 (2017).
Applying these principals, the Supreme Court reviewed the books and found they “are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.” Because parents occupy the “primary role . . . in the upbringing of their children”—a role that includes the “inculcation of . . . religious beliefs”, Yoder, 406 U.S. at 233, this Court determined “[t]he Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs, substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners’ children[.]” The Court upheld the injunction.
School districts must carefully consider introducing curriculum that may interfere with parents’ religious beliefs without providing an opportunity to opt out of the instruction.
You may read the full opinion here: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf |
