Another Challenge for Schools
The Case
Last week was the end of the Supreme Court session. (It will return in October.) One of the cases heard and decided was Mahmoud v. Taylor (No. 24-297), a case dealing with reading choices in schools. You can read the Court’s decision here.
The case originated in Montgomery County, Maryland. The school district had introduced LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks—for example, Love, Violet and Uncle Bobby’s Wedding—into the kindergarten through fifth-grade curriculum for the 2022–2023 school year. As could be expected, not all parents wanted their children to participate in classes using those books. Most parents cited religious issues or that they would find it awkward to discuss the books and their perceived issues about them with their children. At first, the district allowed parents to opt out their children from classes using those books. However, officials later rescinded the opt-out policy, noting logistical burdens because of increasing numbers of parents who wanted to take advantage of that option, and concerns about social stigma for opted-out students.
A coalition of six parents—representing Muslim, Christian, and Orthodox faiths—took legal action to, at the least, reinstate the opt-out option and sued under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Lower courts (District Court and Fourth Circuit) denied relief, so it was appealed. In a 6–3 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling, granting a preliminary injuction and sending the case back for further review.
The Whys
The Majority (6–3)
As often the case in the Roberts Court, the case was decided along philosophical (some would say party) lines. Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett constituted the majority.
Speaking for the the majority, Alito says, “Such unilateral implementation without parental notice or opt-out options constituted a ‘substantial burden’ on religious exercise—a concept anchored in the landmark case Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).”
According to the majority, the material in the books in question is normative. In other words, the majority believes the books promote certain values, such as same-sex marriage, rather than simply describe real-world facts. Justice Alito states, “The government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill in their children.”
He continues,
[W]e hold that the 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 their children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise.
Alito later adds, "We reject this chilling vision of the power of the state to strip away the critical right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.”
And because the majority believes the parents are likely to succeed in challenging the school board’s policy, they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. The Court rules that until every appellate review is complete, the school board must notify all parents when one of the books considered questionable is to be used. Parents will be allowed to have their children excused from that instruction if they so choose.
The Minority (3–0)
The so-called liberal justices—Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown-Jackson—made up the minorty. Their concerns include a possible negative strain in an already overworked educational system, especially if the district wants to continue providing a school system that embraces differences.
For example, while this case involves books about the LGBTA+ community, there’s no reason to believe other areas will not be called into question. Regular readers know how often I come on here and rail against revisionist history, historical neglect, and the like. And, of course, there are more than a handful of people who refuse to accept the fact we are experiencing climate change, referring to it instead as a “client hoax.”Ok, you get my drift. The minority notes that each opt out would likely require some form of legal action, requiring use of already scarce resources to pay for excessive litigation.
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown-Jackson also expressed their concerns that restrictions on what can be taught in schools can undermine the multicultural mission of public schools. Rather than welcoming and embracing differences, tolerance and understanding may be challenged. While concern for the well-being of students whose parents take advantage of the opt-out choice has been noted, what about students who have same-sex parents? They are also open to bullying and ridicule. They may be made to feel that their situations—especially if they believe they might be gay—is wrong, bad, any of the myriad negative emotions. I confess that an unwillingness to understand and even coming to accept differences is outside my belief system.
So What Are Schools to Do?
As mentioned earlier, the Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction requires districts to immediately restore or establish notification/opt-out mechanisms while their policies are reviewed more strictly. The Court did not, however, provide any guidelines as to what schools can do during that period. But here are some ways schools can adhere to the Court’s requirements.
Establish or Restore an Opt-Out System
Provide parental/guardian notices about upcoming LGBTQ+-themed storytimes or use of books in the classroom.
Give parents/guardians enough time to submit opt-out requests. Encourage them to ask questions.
During readings, opt-out students might go to another teacher or classroom; be allowed to read an alternative, vetted, and mutually agreed-on book; or to work quietly on supervised assignments. Some districts may choose to develop curriculum materials without LGBTQ+ context. Possible subjects include age-appropriate books and stories about friendship and families.
In districts with many opt outs, administrators might remove or use fewer LGBTQ+-themed books to avoid repeated disruptions. Some critics describe this as saying “Don’t say gay” without really saying it.
Local Policy Adjustments
It is likely that to meet mandates, some districts will have to change at least some of their formal policies. Depending on the district’s makeup, policies may require that they only codify notification and opt-out systems. Others my decide to redesign their curriculums to shift LGBTQ+ reading to optional modules. For example, instead of assigning an LGBTQ+themed book to the class, allow such books to be available for students to choose during a reading period featuring inclusivity.
Besides parents of the students, suggestions are likely to come from education groups, the school board, and even legislators. Hopefully everyone’s motives revolve around the best needs of the students.
Conclusion
Mahmoud et al. v. Taylor et al. shifts the balance between inclusive education and religious liberty by guaranteeing the rights of parents to shield their children from state-mandated content that contradicts their faith. While the ruling does not ban LGBTQ+-themed books, it effectively curtails their mandatory use in early education unless opt outs are offered. How each district responds—whether by offering substitute books or removing the contested material—varies depending on community norms, political pressures, and administrative capacity.
Education experts warn that this may reduce the presence of LGBTQ+ narratives in schools. While it has been brought to my attention that it could have been worse—the Court might have ruled that such books couldn’t be used if anyone complained—well, that goes beyond the issues of this case. Mahmoud v. Taylor asks for the reestablishment of the opt-out option. But it’s understandable for anyone following the Court to wonder how long before the justices come down with a decision that strictly limits the use of books that reflect the LGBTQ+ community. If they allow them at all. Everyone involved in making decisions on their use, and the use of other materials about so-called controversial topics, should also recall all individuals involved. Do they really want to give the child with same-sex parents the idea that his or her family is bad?
Bibliography
EdWeek. 2025. “Supreme Court Sides with Parents in LGBTQ Curriculum Opt-Out Case.” Education Week, June 28, 2025. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/supreme-court-sides-with-parents-in-lgbtq-curriculum-opt-out-case/2025/06. Accessed June 30, 2025.
Faegre Drinker. 2025. “Supreme Court Decides Mahmoud v. Taylor: Parental Rights and Curriculum Content.” Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, June 28, 2025. https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2025/6/supreme-court-decides-mahmoud-v-taylor. Accessed June 30, 2025.
Guardian. 2025. “US Supreme Court Rules Schools Must Let Kids Opt Out of LGBTQ Book Readings.” The Guardian, June 27, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/27/supreme-court-lgbt-book-ban-case-ruling. Accessed July 1, 2025.
“Supreme Court Sides with Religious Parents Seeking to Opt Out of LGBTQ Storybooks.” The Washington Post, June 27, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/27/supreme-court-lgbtq-books-religious-parents. Accessed July 2, 2025.
“The Supreme Court Just Imposed a ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Regime on Every Public School in America.” Vox, June 28, 2025. https://www.vox.com/scotus/417974/supreme-court-dont-say-gay-mahmoud-taylor-schools. Accessed June 30, 2025.
Them. 2025. “Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Parents Who Objected to LGBTQ+ Books in Schools.” Them, June 27, 2025. https://www.them.us/story/supreme-court-lgbtq-books-schools-opt-out-religion. Accessed July 2, 2025.
U.S. Supreme Court. 2025. Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. ___ (2025). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf. Accessed July 1, 2025.