SCOTUS: Mahmoud v. Taylor; Parents Can Opt Kids Out of LGBTQ+ Instruction

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled on whether public schools must accommodate religious objections to LGBTQ+-inclusive curricula. In a 6–3 decision on June 27, 2025, the Court held in Mahmoud v. Taylor that Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland) violated the Free Exercise Clause by denying religious parents the ability to opt out of certain lessons.

What We Know:

• The case was brought by families of different faiths who objected to their children receiving instruction involving LGBTQ+ themes in literature and health education.
• Montgomery County Public Schools eliminated the opt-out option for inclusive curricula in 2023, citing the need for consistent exposure to diversity and civil rights content.
• Plaintiffs argued that this violated their First Amendment rights by forcing their children to receive instruction that conflicted with their religious beliefs.
• The Court ruled in favor of the parents, stating that the school’s policy was not neutral and unduly burdened religious expression.

Deeper Dive:

Montgomery County’s decision to make LGBTQ+-inclusive curricula mandatory, including picture books featuring same-sex parents and discussions of gender identity, sparked backlash from conservative religious communities. After attempts to resolve the conflict failed, several families filed a suit, asserting their constitutional right to opt their children out of material that contradicted their religiously held beliefs.

The school district defended its policy by arguing that exposure to diverse perspectives was vital to fostering inclusion and preparing students for a pluralistic society. It also argued that allowing individualized opt-outs would fragment the curriculum and undermine civil rights education.

Justice Samuel Alito delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, with the dissenting opinion delivered by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.

In its decision, the SCOTUS majority held that denying opt-outs substantially burdened the parents’ free exercise of religion. Including photos of some of the books in question, the majority emphasized that while schools may teach inclusive values, they must not compel participation in lessons that conflict with religious beliefs when reasonable alternatives are available.

In the absence of an injunction, the parents will continue to be put to a choice: either risk their child’s exposure to burdensome instruction, or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services. As we have explained, that choice un­constitutionally burdens the parents’ religious exercise, and “‘[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even min­imal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irrepara­ble injury.’” – Justice Alito

The dissenting opinion also included photos, arguing that the ramifications of this decision limit the diverse instruction crucial to education. They also argue that the parents failed to follow the processes allowable for remedy with the school district before filing their suit.

More Quotes from the Opinion:

Concurring – Justice Thomas:

Insofar as schools or boards attempt to employ their curricula to interfere with religious exercise, courts should carefully police such “ingenious defiance of the Constitution” no less than they do in other contexts.

Dissenting Opinion – Justice Sotomayor:

Rather than avail themselves of the district’s established process for challenging objectionable instructional material, petitioners sued the MCPS Board in federal court…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. That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now. The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent.

Why This Matters:

Mahmoud v. Taylor significantly shifts the balance between public education mandates and religious liberty. While it affirms parental rights, critics argue it opens the door to further challenges against inclusive curricula — not just on gender and sexuality, but also on race, anti-racism, and social justice.

This ruling could lead to widespread opt-outs in states and districts with conservative majorities, undermining comprehensive education efforts. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups warn it may isolate queer students and foster environments where diversity is presented as controversial rather than foundational.

The decision forces school districts to reevaluate curriculum policies — and leaves the door open for more litigation as education becomes the next major battlefield for civil rights and religious freedom.

See More: BLK ALERTS – SCOTUS Drops Five Major Rulings in a Day — Immigration, Education, Health Care, and Internet Access in the Balance