In a 6-3 decision issued on June 27th, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that religious parents have the constitutional right to opt their children out of classroom materials that promote views on gender and sexuality that substantially interfere with their ability to raise their children in their faith. The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, centered on the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education’s 2022 decision to eliminate parental notice and opt-out options for newly introduced LGBTQ storybooks aimed at pre-K through fifth-grade students.
BACKGROUND
During the 2022-2023 school year, the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced a variety of what they called “LGBTQ+ inclusive” books into the public school curriculum. Five of those storybooks were approved for grades K through 5th. The storybooks at issue have drawn national attention for their provocative content. One book teaches that doctors merely “guess” a baby’s sex at birth. Another encourages preschoolers to find images such as “drag queen,” “underwear,” and “leather,” at a pride parade. A third implies that a girl who likes math, skateboards, and karate must really be a boy.
When parents in the county initially requested to opt their children out of reading the books, the school board permitted it under a policy that provided “reasonable accommodations” for students’ religious beliefs and practices. However, less than a year later, the Montgomery County Board of Education reversed course and rescinded the policy.
In response, a diverse group of parents filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, arguing that the no-opt-out policy violated their right to the free exercise of religion. After the lower courts denied their claims, the parents, represented by Becket, a nonprofit law firm, petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case.
Decision
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito reaffirmed that the Constitution protects the fundamental right of parents “to direct the religious upbringing of their children,” emphasizing that this right “would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.” He observed that the books in question were “unmistakably normative” and “clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”
Justice Alito directly addressed several core concerns raised by parents regarding the storybooks at issue. Below are key excerpts from the decision relating to same-sex marriage and transgender ideology:
“Take, for example, the message sent by the books concerning same-sex marriage. Many Americans “advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644, 679. That group includes each of the parents in this case. The storybooks, however, are designed to present the opposite viewpoint to young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher’s instruction. The storybooks present same-sex weddings as occasions for great celebration and suggest that the only rubric for determining whether a marriage is acceptable is whether the individuals concerned “love each other.”
“The storybooks similarly convey a normative message on the subjects of sex and gender. Many Americans, like the parents in this case, believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly. The storybooks, however, suggest that it is hurtful, and perhaps even hateful, to hold the view that gender is inextricably bound with biological sex.”
The Court ultimately held that the school board’s refusal to provide notice and an opportunity to opt out from the books burdened the parents’ rights to freely exercise their religion and to raise their children in their faith. The Court rejected the school’s excuses that allowing opt outs would be too burdensome or would stigmatize LGBTQ children. It held that the board’s actions likely violated the parents’ constitutional rights. The parents were therefore entitled to a preliminary injunction on their claims.
The significance of this decision for parental rights and religious liberty cannot be overstated. It reaffirms a foundational principle: that parents, not the government, bear the primary responsibility for guiding the moral and spiritual development of their children, even within the public education system.
IMPLICATIONS FOR MA
Mahmoud will have broad and far-reaching implications for Massachusetts parents, who can now wield this decision to ensure that public schools respect their rights to opt out of content that substantially interferes with their ability to raise their children in their faith. As with the plaintiffs in Mahmoud, parents can now demand notice and an opportunity to opt their children out of storybooks or other materials which promote views on LGBTQ issues that conflict with their religious beliefs. This will very likely extend to sex education materials on sexual orientation and gender identity, which DESE has claimed for years do not fall under the sex ed opt-out law.
The Court’s language in Mahmoud is not confined only to LGBTQ content, however, but to any materials which “pose a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.” Parents whose rights are not being respected to receive notice and an opportunity to opt out of such content should reach out to Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center. We intend to aggressively enforce this decision against Massachusetts public schools.
Help MFI and MLLC continue their important work strengthening Massachusetts families with a generous gift today!
Donate Today