Supreme Court Hears Case on Parental & Religious Rights on LGBTQ+ Content in Schools
On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in, Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case involving Maryland parents seeking the right to opt their elementary-school-aged children out of instruction incorporating LGBTQ+ themes. The parents, representing diverse religious backgrounds, argued that the Montgomery County Public Schools’ refusal to allow opt-outs violates their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. Over nearly two-and-a-half hours, a majority of justices appeared sympathetic to the parents’ position, questioning the school board’s rationale and the potential harm of granting opt-out accommodations.
Background of the Case
The case originates from Montgomery County, Maryland, a religiously diverse region near Washington, D.C. The plaintiffs include Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat (Muslim), Melissa and Chris Persak (Roman Catholic), and Svitlana and Jeff Roman (Ukrainian Orthodox and Roman Catholic). In 2022, the Montgomery County school board approved language-arts curriculum materials featuring LGBTQ+ characters, such as a book about a girl attending her uncle’s same-sex wedding and Pride Puppy, which depicts a puppy lost during a Pride parade.
In 2023, the school board eliminated the option for parents to excuse their children from instruction involving LGBTQ+ related materials. The parents filed a federal lawsuit, asserting that the policy infringes on their constitutional right to guide their children’s education on matters of gender and sexuality in accordance with their religious beliefs. Lower courts, including a federal appeals court, declined to issue a preliminary injunction requiring the school board to notify parents of the materials’ use or allow opt-outs, citing insufficient evidence that exposure to the books compelled the parents to violate their faith.
Key Issues in Oral Arguments
Defining “Exposure” vs. Indoctrination
Several justices probed the distinction between mere exposure to ideas and active instruction. Justice Clarence Thomas asked whether the books were simply present in classrooms or integrated into the curriculum. Eric Baxter, representing the parents, clarified that teachers are required to use the books up to five times annually, emphasizing their role in mandatory instruction.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett distinguished between presenting ideas as factual and introducing them as perspectives, suggesting that the former could constitute more than exposure. Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed this, noting that framing certain views as “wrong and hurtful” could exceed mere exposure and infringe on parental rights.
Coercion and Religious Freedom
The justices also examined whether exposure to the books coerces parents to violate their religious beliefs. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that precedent establishes mere exposure as non-coercive. In contrast, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed skepticism, noting that young children may not distinguish between being taught a concept and being asked to affirm it. He suggested that telling five-year-olds they need not agree with the material could send a “dangerous message.”
Justice Samuel Alito strongly supported the parents, questioning whether a teacher’s derogatory remarks about beliefs opposing same-sex marriage would constitute coercion. He criticized the school board’s policy for teaching moral principles objectionable to parents without offering an opt-out.
Scope of Parental Opt-Out Rights
The Court’s liberal minority raised concerns about the breadth of the parents’ proposed rule. Justice Elena Kagan pressed Baxter on whether any classroom content conflicting with a parent’s religious beliefs would trigger an opt-out right, warning that such a rule could lead to challenges against the materials themselves. Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited examples of objections to materials about women’s achievements, divorce, or immodest dress, questioning where the line would be drawn.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked whether the parents’ rule could extend to objecting to a gay teacher displaying same-sex wedding photos. These concerns highlighted the potential for a broadly interpreted opt-out right to disrupt school operations.
Feasibility of Opt-Outs
The school board, represented by Alan Schoenfeld, argued that accommodating opt-outs is administratively infeasible due to the need for space, supervision, and alternative instruction for numerous students. Justice Jackson noted the challenge of excusing students during English and language arts classes, where the books are integrated, rather than in discrete units.
However, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito questioned the school board’s stance, pointing out that other districts and Montgomery County itself allow opt-outs for various subjects, such as health class. Kavanaugh expressed frustration, noting that “every other school board has opt-outs for all sorts of things.” Baxter countered that the school board initially eliminated opt-outs to ensure all students received lessons in inclusivity, only later citing logistical challenges.
Justices’ Perspectives
A majority of justices appeared inclined to favor the parents. Justice Kavanaugh emphasized that the parents seek only to excuse their children from instruction, not to alter the curriculum, describing the case as an opportunity for a “win/win” that accommodates both religious freedom and educational goals. Justice Alito questioned the “big deal” of allowing opt-outs, suggesting minimal disruption to the school board’s objectives.
The liberal minority, while sympathetic to the school board’s concerns, acknowledged the need to balance inclusivity with parental rights. However, their questions focused on limiting the scope of any ruling to avoid far-reaching implications.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could redefine the balance between public school curricula and parental religious freedoms. A ruling in favor of the parents may establish a precedent for opt-out rights when educational materials conflict with religious beliefs, potentially affecting school districts nationwide. Conversely, upholding the school board’s policy could affirm schools’ authority to mandate inclusive curricula without accommodations.
By the close of oral arguments, the Court appeared poised to grant the parents the right to opt their children out, signaling a potential shift toward greater parental control in public education. A decision is expected by the end of the Court’s term in June 2025.
Why the Fodera Law Firm?
The attorneys at the Fodera Law Firm can assist you if you have had your rights violated. We can explain your rights and provide legal advice to guide you through your quest for justice. The Fodera Law Firm represents private sector clients in the following religion discrimination-related matters:
EEOC Charges of Discrimination
DC Office of Human Rights or Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination complaints, conciliation, and hearings
State lawsuits
Federal lawsuits
Mediation and Arbitration
Settlement negotiations
See our contact information below or click the Book a Consultation button above to speak with one of our attorneys. The Fodera Law Firm offers strategic and results-driven legal services to private sector clients in Washington, DC & Massachusetts.
