Mahmoud v. Taylor
606 U. S. ____ (2025) (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Free Exercise Clause protects parents' right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, and a public school policy that requires children to participate in instruction posing a "very real threat of undermining" their religious beliefs without a parental opt-out option constitutes an unconstitutional burden on religious exercise, requiring strict scrutiny.
Facts:
- During the 2022-2023 school year, the Montgomery County Board of Education (Board) introduced "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks, including five for kindergarten through fifth grade focused on sexuality and gender, into the public school curriculum.
- The Board selected these books based on a "Critical Selection Repertoire" requiring texts to "disrupt" heteronormativity and cisnormativity, and provided teachers with guidance to reinforce specific viewpoints on same-sex marriage and gender and to reprimand dissenting student comments.
- Initially, the Board allowed parents, consistent with its "Guidelines for Respecting Religious Diversity," to opt their children out of instruction involving these books and notified them in advance.
- Petitioners Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, Jeff and Svitlana Roman, and Chris and Melissa Persak, all parents from diverse religious backgrounds, hold sincere beliefs that conflict with the messages conveyed in the storybooks regarding same-sex marriage and gender.
- In March 2023, the Board rescinded the parental opt-out policy and stopped providing notice of when the "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks would be taught, citing "significant disruptions" and concerns about "social stigma and isolation" for other students.
- The Board continues to permit opt-outs for other school activities, including the "family life and human sexuality" unit (required by Maryland law), and provides separate programming for emergent multilingual learners and students with individualized educational programs.
- Due to the no-opt-out policy, Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat and Jeff and Svitlana Roman felt religiously compelled to send their children to private school at significant financial sacrifice.
- Kids First, an unincorporated association including Grace Morrison, whose disabled daughter required special services, also felt religiously compelled to remove her daughter from public school, incurring substantial costs.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners (a group of individual parents and Kids First) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, asserting that the Board's no-opt-out policy infringed on their right to the free exercise of religion and sought a preliminary and permanent injunction.
- The District Court denied the requested preliminary injunction, characterizing petitioners' argument as an objection to school "indoctrination" and dismissing Yoder as "sui generis."
- A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding the record "threadbare" and Yoder "markedly circumscribed."
- Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to review the decision, and the Court granted their petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school board's policy that introduces "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks into the elementary curriculum and eliminates parental opt-out options unconstitutionally burden parents' right to the free exercise of religion by posing a "very real threat of undermining" their religious beliefs?
Opinions:
Majority - Alito, J.
Yes, the Montgomery County Board of Education's policy unconstitutionally burdens parents' right to the free exercise of religion. The Court has long recognized parents' right to direct their children's religious upbringing, which is violated by government policies that "substantially interfere" with religious development, posing an "objective danger to the free exercise of religion." This right extends beyond the home and into public schools. While West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette (1943) addressed direct compulsion, Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) extended Free Exercise protection to policies imposing "more subtle forms of interference," holding that a compulsory education law violated Amish parents' rights because it exposed children to an "environment hostile to Amish beliefs" and "pressure to conform," "substantially interfering with the religious development" of the children. Yoder is not sui generis but embodies a robust, general principle. The "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks, combined with the no-notice and no-opt-out policy, substantially interfere with children's religious development. The books are "unmistakably normative," presenting specific values (e.g., same-sex marriage as celebrated, gender identity as chosen) as things to be celebrated, and contrary views as "hurtful," which is "hostile" to the parents' religious beliefs and exerts "psychological pressure to conform" on young, impressionable children. The Board's teacher guidance exacerbates this by encouraging teachers to reinforce these viewpoints and label dissenting religious views as "hurtful." The argument that this is mere "exposure" is rejected; the test is "substantial interference" or "very real threat of undermining" religious beliefs, which the books achieve. Bowen v. Roy and Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn. are inapplicable because public school operation is not a matter of "internal affairs" but involves direct, coercive state interaction with young residents. The argument that parents can use private schools or homeschooling is rejected because public education is a benefit the government cannot condition on surrendering religious exercise, especially where education is compulsory and alternatives are costly. The burden is of the same character as in Yoder, thus strict scrutiny applies regardless of neutrality or general applicability. The Board's asserted compelling interest in a safe and conducive learning environment and preventing disruption/stigma is undermined by its continued allowance of opt-outs in other areas (e.g., Family Life and Human Sexuality unit, non-curricular activities) and parallel programming for other student groups. The administrative burden is "self-inflicted" by the Board's curriculum design, and protecting one group from stigma cannot come at the cost of stigmatizing another's religious beliefs. Irreparable harm exists due to the loss of First Amendment freedoms. Therefore, a preliminary injunction is warranted, requiring advance notice and opt-out options for these or similar books.
Concurring - Thomas, J.
Yes, the Board’s policy violates the parents’ free exercise right. I agree with the majority that the Board's policy is incompatible with Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). This policy requires additional scrutiny because, as in Yoder's historical analysis, the practice of teaching sexuality and gender identity to young children is a "significantly more recent" development with no historical pedigree suggesting it is critical to civic development. The Board's "LGBTQ+-inclusive" curriculum and no-opt-out policy pursue a kind of ideological conformity that Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) prohibits, as the State cannot "standardize its children" by forcing instruction, especially when parents' religious views are denigrated. The Board's asserted interests in "equity," "inclusion," and diminishing disruption are not "interests of the highest order" sufficient to justify interfering with First Amendment rights. The claimed classroom disruption is "self-inflicted" because the Board chose to "weave" controversial material throughout the curriculum rather than confining it to specific units, like sex education, which could more easily accommodate opt-outs. Such an unprecedented curriculum cannot "overbalance" the parents' "legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion."
Dissenting - Sotomayor, J.
No, the Board’s policy does not unconstitutionally burden parents’ right to the free exercise of religion. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits government from compelling individuals to give up or violate their religious beliefs, but it does not "require the Government itself to behave in ways that the individual believes will further his or her spiritual development." Mere exposure to objectionable ideas does not create a free exercise claim; "offense . . . equate[s] to coercion," as established in Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. (2022) and West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette (1943). The majority's "very real threat of undermining" test is a misreading of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) and is definitively foreclosed by Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn. (1988) and Bowen v. Roy (1986), which rejected claims where government action interfered with spiritual fulfillment but did not compel violation of beliefs. Yoder involved direct compulsion to abandon faith, not mere exposure. The majority's test lacks meaningful limits, as even "subtle" normative messages in children's books could trigger strict scrutiny, leading to "chaos for this Nation's public schools." The Board's guidance aims to foster civility and respect, not to "accuse [students] of being 'hurtful' when they express religious confusion." This ruling will impose impossible administrative burdens and lead to chilling effects, particularly on material representing LGBTQ+ students and families, effectively giving a subset of parents veto power over democratically elected school boards. The majority errs in applying strict scrutiny because this is not a "hybrid rights" case as required by Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith (1990). Even under strict scrutiny, the Board's policy is narrowly tailored; the "Family Life and Human Sexuality" unit is discrete, unlike the broadly integrated storybooks, and consolidating LGBTQ+ books into an "inclusivity hour" would undermine the goal of representation and inclusion. Public education by necessity involves exposure to diverse ideas; presuming schools must be free of all such exposure "presumes public schools out of existence."
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the scope of parental Free Exercise rights in public education beyond direct compulsion, suggesting that exposure to curriculum "hostile" to or "undermining" religious beliefs can trigger strict scrutiny. It reinterprets Wisconsin v. Yoder as establishing a general "threat of undermining" test rather than a "hybrid rights" exception as previously understood by Smith. This ruling will likely lead to increased litigation over school curricula, particularly regarding sensitive social issues, potentially forcing schools to offer widespread opt-out options or to self-censor content to avoid legal challenges. The decision reflects a continued shift by the Court towards robust protection of religious liberty, even at the expense of local control over public education and inclusive curricula, and places a significant administrative burden on school districts.
