The Supreme Court is set to weigh a contentious and closely watched case this week that strikes at the heart of the national debate over parental rights, religious liberty, and public education. At issue in Mahmoud v. Taylor is whether Maryland parents can opt their elementary school children out of classroom readings that include content related to LGBTQ themes, such as pride parades, drag queens, and gender transitions.
The plaintiffs—a coalition of Muslim and Christian parents in Montgomery County—argue that the school board’s refusal to allow opt-outs violates their First Amendment rights, particularly the free exercise of religion. Represented by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the parents contend that being forced to expose their children to ideological content they fundamentally disagree with is an infringement on their constitutional right to raise their children according to their faith.
The court documents cite books like Pride Puppy, a picture book that invites children to search for words such as “underwear” and the name of a “controversial LGBTQ activist and sex worker,” and Intersection Allies, which introduces concepts such as gender identity and systemic oppression to young readers. Parents say they’re not just concerned about age-appropriateness—they see this as a form of state-imposed ideology, contrary to their religious beliefs.
Initially, the Montgomery County Board of Education allowed religious opt-outs, but reversed its policy in 2022, eliminating parental notice and asserting that the books were part of general instruction, not sex education. This distinction is key: opt-outs remain available for high school sex-ed, but not for the LGBTQ-themed readings in elementary school classrooms.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the school district last year, ruling 2-1 that the parents’ free exercise rights were not violated. The court argued that hearing about other perspectives does not compel parents or children to alter their beliefs or actions, and thus does not meet the threshold for a constitutional violation.
The school board reinforced that stance, stating in its brief that “no parent or child was penalized for his or her religious beliefs, asked to affirm any views contrary to his or her faith, or otherwise prohibited or deterred from engaging in religious practice.”
But the Trump administration, in a friend-of-the-court brief, sided firmly with the parents. The brief argued that the district’s policy “requires parents to ‘shed their religious beliefs’” in practice, even if not in law. The administration maintained that the parents’ religious practice includes determining when and how their children are introduced to topics of gender and sexuality.
The case could set a major precedent. While religious liberty and parental rights have long been pillars of American jurisprudence, Mahmoud v. Taylor marks a modern test of those principles in the post-Obergefell, post-COVID education era, where questions about classroom content, curriculum transparency, and ideological influence are front and center.
If the Court rules in favor of the parents, it could bolster opt-out rights nationwide, forcing school districts to re-evaluate curriculum policies and restore accommodations for religious and moral objections. If it upholds the district’s policy, it could expand the scope of what public schools may teach without parental approval—particularly in areas touching on gender identity and sexual orientation.
Mahmoud v. Taylor is part of a wave of religious liberty cases being heard this term. In March, the Court heard arguments in a dispute involving Catholic Charities and Wisconsin’s tax policy. Later this month, justices will consider whether the country’s first religious charter school in Oklahoma violates the Establishment Clause.
