Few issues are more consequential or controversial than public education, parental rights, LGBTQ rights and First Amendment religious freedom. All these issues coalesce in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, on which the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 22, 2025.
The case comes from Montgomery County, Maryland, a religiously diverse suburb of the nation’s capital that includes Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others, some of whom object to same-sex sexual relations.
The board of education adopted LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks such as “Pride Puppy” and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” that dealt with such issues as nonbinary identification, gender transitions and gay pride for pre-K to sixth grade classroom instruction.
Concern over LGBTQ-inclusive books in Maryland school district
In addition to concerns (shared by some school officials) that the materials were not age appropriate, some parents also objected to guidelines in instructional materials for teachers that suggested that gender identification was a choice rather than a biological fact and comments from board authorities that suggested that those who thought otherwise were prejudiced.
Although parents who thought such teachings contradicted their religious beliefs were initially permitted to allow their children to opt out of such instruction, the board no longer requires parental notice and no longer permits such op-out options, largely because of the inconvenience that this would impose.
A U.S. district court denied a preliminary injunction against the school policy. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in turn, rejected an interlocutory appeal (one filed before a case has been fully resolved) for such an injunction, albeit in part because it thought that plaintiffs had to meet a particularly high bar in such cases. Moreover, one of the three judges, who sided with the plaintiffs, dissented.
Case may resemble others related to book banning
On the surface, the case resembles cases of book banning, where books are removed from school or public libraries on the basis of what are perceived to be objectionable content.
In this case, however, parents are not objecting to the presence of such books on a bookshelf but to teacher-led discussion of books that they believe contradict their own religious beliefs about sexuality and parents’ inability to opt their children out of such discussions. They further argue that the law is not neutral, because state laws allow parents to opt their children out of other instructions dealing with family life and human sexuality.
Parents argue religious rights should allow them control
Parents believe, in turn, that they have a right to prevent their children from being exposed to classroom discussions that contradict their faiths. Among the precedents they have cited are Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), where courts exempted children of Amish parents from having to attend public schools past the eighth grade. Other cases, most notably Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), have affirmed the rights of parents to send their children to parochial schools, while West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) affirmed the right of parents to send children to private rather than to public schools.
In the case at hand, parents have noted that they may be unable to afford the cost of private education and that they should not have to pay such costs simply to prevent their children from being exposed to views that contradict their religious beliefs. Such arguments have failed when it comes to exempting students from classes that deal with evolution (which contradicts some religious tenets), although some might distinguish such scientific teachings from those at issue in this case.
The Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) have outlawed devotional prayer and Bible reading in public school classrooms largely because these activities impose on those who objected for religious reasons, although this more clearly involved religious conduct rather than mere religious instruction.
Justices question how to draw line for religious-based opt-outs of curriculum
One of the difficulties that justices raised during oral arguments was how to draw the line between which topics were appropriate for religiously based opt-outs and which were not, although Montgomery County’s policies appear to be outliers.
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has generally prioritized free exercise claims and required strict scrutiny of infringements of First Amendment rights. Questions directed to attorneys by conservative justices indicate that it might do so in this decision, which will likely be issued in late June or early July. Justice Brett Kavanaugh specifically observed that Maryland had been founded on “religious tolerance, a haven for Catholics escaping persecution in England,” and expressed surprise that the schools were “not respecting religious liberty, given that history” (Fritze 2025).
John R. Vile is a political science professor and dean of the Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University.