In a much-anticipated case centered on religious freedom, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mahmoud v. Taylor that a group of Maryland parents can remove their children from school lessons if those lessons violate their beliefs.
The 6-3 decision in Mahmoud pitted parents with Muslim, Jewish, and Christian backgrounds against the school board of Montgomery County, Maryland, which in 2022 introduced homosexual and LGBTQ+ materials into its public school curriculum. The board initially allowed parents to remove their children from the instruction, but withdrew that offer the next year, citing “disruptions” in learning due to the number of opt-outs. The parents sued, claiming their religious rights were violated.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito sided with the parents’ concerns:
“Today, we hold that the parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses “a very real threat of undermining” the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.
Alito, joined by Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Thomas in the majority, included in his opinion full-color excerpts of the books the school board had approved, as did Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented along with Justices Kagan and Brown-Jackson.
The Order of the Court states:
“Specifically, until all appellate review in this case is completed, the Board should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.”
Johnson County attorney Fritz Edmunds says the Mahmoud decision is a big win for all parents.
“At a time when politically-based indoctrination of public schoolchildren has reached a previously unimaginable fever pitch, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, provides clear legal grounds for challenging school districts that subtly, and not so subtly, indoctrinate very young, impressionable students against the will of their parents. As Justice Thomas states in his concurring opinion, “the Board failed to identify any tradition of teaching sexuality and gender identity to young children, much less a tradition of preventing parents from opting their children out of such instruction.”
Edmunds says that while the holding in this case applies to the particular Maryland district, it could certainly be argued with excellent authority that any plaintiffs with Article III standing (i.e., a “dog in the fight”) could force their district to allow opt-out.
