One Small Win for Parents’ Rights

Earlier this year I wrote about the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case Mahmoud V. Taylor. The case had to do with a parent’s right to opt their children out of content in public school they found objectionable, and the Supreme Court was asked if the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing the school from teaching their children objectionable content until the court had decided the case. On June 27, 2025, the court published its decision.

Background

Before we get into the court’s decision, let’s look at what led to the case in the first place. If you are already familiar with the background, feel free to skip to the section What is Normal.

This case, however, arises from the Board’s abject refusal to heed widespread and impassioned pleas for accommodation. In the years leading up to 2022, the Board apparently “determined that the books used in its existing [English & Language Arts] curriculum were not representative of many students and families in Montgomery County because they did not include LGBTQ characters.” … The Board therefore decided to introduce into the curriculum what it described as “‘LGBTQ+-inclusive texts.’”… As one email sent by MCPS principals reflects, the Board selected the books according to a “Critical Selection Repertoire” that required selectors to review potential texts and ask questions such as: “Is heteronormativity reinforced or disrupted?”; “Is cisnormativity reinforced or disrupted?”; and “Are power hierarchies that uphold the dominant culture reinforced or disrupted?”  Mahmoud v. Taylor

So the MCPS board specifically sought books that were disruptive to “heteronormativity” and “cisnormativity.” These books were specifically targeted to young children.

At issue in this lawsuit are the five “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks that are approved for students in Kindergarten through fifth grade—in other words, for children who are generally between 5 and 11 years old. Mahmoud v. Taylor

The Board then launched these “LGBTQ+-inclusive” books into their schools.

The Board officially launched the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts into MCPS schools in the 2022–2023 school year. Shortly thereafter, parents “began contacting individual teachers, principals, or MCPS staff ” about the storybooks and asking that their children be excused from classroom instruction related to them. … Some parents showed up at the Board’s public business meetings to express their concerns about the storybooks’ content. In an early 2023 meeting, for example, one parent represented herself as “a voice for parents in [her] community, many of [whom] are actually working today and unable to attend.” … She said that MCPS parents were “frustrated” because, in their view, “educators and administrators are going behind what [parents] are teaching their kids at home, and pushing ideas of gender ideology on their kids.” … The parent felt that the Board was “implying to [children] that their religion, their belief system, and their family tradition is actually wrong.” Mahmoud v. Taylor

The Boards decision to launch their “LGBTQ+-inclusive” initiative brought a quick response from parents. They were concerned that the school board seemed to be going behind parents’ backs to undermine both the parents’ religious beliefs and authority.

At the same Board meeting, one Board member responded by saying that “some of the testimony today was disturbing to me personally. Transgender, LGBTQ individuals are not an ideology, they are a reality. . . . [T]here are religions out there that teach that women should only achieve certain subservient roles in life, and MCPS would never think of not having a book in a classroom that showed a woman” in a professional role. … The Board’s student member agreed with the sentiment and proclaimed that “ignorance and hate does exist within our community, but please know that every student—each of our 160,000 students in our large county—has a place in the school system.” Mahmoud v. Taylor

While the Board member’s statement about LGBTQ individuals existing is true, the student member’s statement is abjectly false, since students who believe in the traditional definition of marriage do not have a place in the school system under the MCPS Board as it is currently established. Based on facts I will explore shortly, it appears ignorance and hatred does exist in the MCPS community, but not from where the student board member claims.

At first, the Board seemed to respond reasonably to the parents objections.

Initially, the Board compromised with objecting parents by notifying them when the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks would be taught and permitting their children to be excused from instruction involving the books. That policy was consistent with the Board’s general “Guidelines for Respecting Religious Diversity,” which at the time provided that “[w]hen possible, schools should try to make reasonable and feasible adjustments to the instructional program to accommodate requests from students, or requests from parents/guardians on behalf of their students, to be excused from specific classroom discussions or activities that they believe would impose a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.” Mahmoud v. Taylor

Sadly, it appears that the Board was not committed to this compromise.

This compromise, however, did not last long. In March 2023, less than a year after the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts were introduced, the Board issued a statement declaring that “[s]tudents and families may not choose to opt out of engaging” with the storybooks and that “teachers will not send home letters to inform families when inclusive books are read in the future.” … Mahmoud v. Taylor

Why would the Board not only abandon this compromise, but do so this quickly?

According to one MCPS official, the Board decided to change its policy because, among other things, “individual principals and teachers could not accommodate the growing number of opt out requests without causing significant disruptions to the classroom environment.”  Mahmoud v. Taylor

To me, this should be a clue: If a large number of parents are opting out of this curriculum, perhaps the curriculum is inappropriate for the targeted students, 5 to 11 year olds. Instead, some principals and teachers first declared it was too hard for them, then claimed, “it was for the children”.

The official also stated that permitting some students to exit the classroom while the storybooks were being taught would expose other students “to social stigma and isolation.” … It was therefore announced that any existing accommodations would expire at the end of the 2022–2023 school year. Mahmoud v. Taylor

Again, another clue. How does a parent not opting their child out of story time expose them to stigma and isolation? Unless of course, the number of parents opting out their child represented such a signficant percentage of the student population that those who were not included felt left out.

Shortly after the Board rescinded parental opt outs, more than 1,000 parents signed a petition asking the Board to restore opt out rights. … And hundreds of displeased parents, including many Muslim and Ethiopian Orthodox parents, appeared at the Board’s public meetings and implored the Board to allow opt outs. … At a May 2023 meeting, one community member testified that “thousands” of parents felt “deeply dismayed and betrayed” by the rescission of opt outs from “content that conflict[s] with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” … At the same meeting, an MCPS student testified and asked the Board “to allow students like me to opt out of content and books that contain sensitive and mature topics that go against my religious beliefs.”  Mahmoud v. Taylor

I guess there was a significant number of parents unhappy with the Board. Over 1,000 signed a petition asking that their opt out rights be restored. Which to me begs the question of whether these were considered rights in the first place? According to testimony, thousands of parents felt dismayed and betrayed by the Board. What was the Board’s reaction?

The Board was unmoved. After the testimony, several Board members and another MCPS official spoke up to “clarify” that the storybooks would not be used for explicit instruction on sexuality and gender, but rather as part of the “literacy curriculum.” … According to a later news article, one Board member recalled that “she felt ‘kind of sorry’” for the student who testified in favor of opt outs, “and wondered to what extent she may have been ‘parroting dogma’ learned from her parents.”. The Board member also expressed her view that “‘[i]f [parents] want their child to receive an education that strictly adheres to their religious dogma, they can send their kid to a private religious school.’” … The Board member went on to suggest that the objecting parents were comparable to “‘white supremacists’” who want to prevent their children from learning about civil rights and “‘xenophobes’” who object to “‘stories about immigrant families.’” Mahmoud v. Taylor

As I said before, here is the evidence that “ignorance and hate does exist within our community.” However, it’s not from these parents, but from MCPS Board members. There’s more, because the Board in general, and this member in particular, show the arrogance of believing they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but ignorant and potentially a danger to their children.

What is “Normal”?

In her dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, Justice Sotomayor made a rather bold statement.

By the majority’s telling, the Montgomery County Public School Board (Board) has undertaken an intentional campaign to “impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are ‘hostile’ to their parents’ religious” principles. … The Court draws on excerpts from Board documents and statements, shorn from context, …, that it claims reflect that intent. The full record reveals a starkly different reality. Mahmoud v. Taylor

No, the full record clearly shows an intent by the Board to indoctrinate young children to accept LGBTQ lifestyles as “normal.”

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. Mahmoud v. Taylor

That’s the claim, but is there any proof brought up in this case?

The Board suggested “that teachers incorporate the new texts into the curriculum in the same way that other books are used, namely, to put them on a shelf for students to find on their own; to recommend a book to a student who would enjoy it; to offer the books as an option for literature circles, book clubs, or paired reading groups; or to use them as a read aloud.” … And “[a]s with all curriculum resources,” the Board voiced its “expectation that teachers use the LGBTQ-Inclusive Books as part of instruction.” … An MCPS official has made clear that “[t]eachers cannot . . . elect not to use the LGBTQ-Inclusive Books at all.” Mahmoud v. Taylor

While at first the books would only be available to student to find on their own, the Board expected teachers to recommend those books as an option for different activities that involved reading. However, according to one MCPS official, teachers could not choose not to use them at all. In other words, teachers had to use these books. But availability was not the only purpose the Board had.

The Board also contemplated that instruction involving the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks would include classroom discussion. … (Board’s lawyer: “there will be discussion that ensues. In fact, I think everyone would hope that discussion ensues”). In anticipation of such discussion, the Board hosted a “professional development workshop” in the summer of 2022, where it provided teachers with a guidance document suggesting how they might respond to student inquiries regarding the themes presented in the books. … For example, if a student asserts that two men cannot get married, the guidance document encouraged teachers to respond by saying: “When people are adults they can get married. Two men who love each other can decide they want to get married.” … If a student claims that a character “can’t be a boy if he was born a girl,” teachers were encouraged to respond: “That comment is hurtful.” … And if a student asks “[w]hat’s transgender?”, it was recommended that teachers explain: “When we’re born, people make a guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re wrong.” ... The guidance document encouraged teachers to “[d]isrupt the either/or thinking” of their students. Mahmoud v. Taylor

So the Board expected these LGBTQ+-inclusive books to be included in classroom discussion all along, so much so that they hosted a workshop to provide guidance on how they were to be used. Just what was that guidance? That two men can get married, which is only true if you think the Supreme Court makes law. Even worse, the Board instructed teachers to lie to the students, that it’s hurtful to tell the truth if it contradicts the LGBTQ dogma, and that doctors “guess” about a baby’s gender at birth. The guidance document encouraged teachers to disrupt the student’s thinking. In other words, the Board clearly wanted to students to think that the truth is a lie and that aberrant behavior is normal, but it wasn’t just the students the Board was after.

At the same workshop, the Board also provided teachers with a guidance document that suggested particular responses to inquiries by parents. For example, if a parent were to ask whether the school was attempting to teach a child to “reject” the values taught at home, teachers were encouraged to respond that “[t]eaching about LGBTQ+ is not about making students think a certain way; it is to show that there is no one ‘right’ or ‘normal’ way to be.” … The guidance also urged teachers to assure parents that there would not be “explicit instruction” about gender and sexual identity, but that “there may be a need to define words that are new and unfamiliar to students,” and that “questions and conversations might organically happen.” … If parents were not comforted by that information, teachers could tell them that “[p]arents always have the choice to keep their student(s) home while using these texts; however, it will not be an excused absence.” Mahmoud v. Taylor

So the Board instructed the teachers to tell parents they were not trying to teach the children to reject the values taught at home, but just that they were wrong. They weren’t going to use explicit language, unless the teacher thought it was necessary to teach a subject unfamiliar to students. And if the parents didn’t like the indoctrination, they could keep their children home, but it would be considered an unexcused absence, i.e. truancy. In other words, we don’t care that these parents pay taxes to fund the school, it’s the Board’s way or the highway, no other options.

Decision

Thankfully, a majority of the Court saw the lie in the MCPS Board’s position. Justice Alito wrote the opinion.

The parents are likely to succeed on their claim that the Board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise. The Court has “long recognized the rights of parents to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children.” … Those rights are violated by government policies that “substantially interfer[e] with the religious development” of children. Mahmoud v. Taylor

So the court thinks the parents are likely to succeed in their case. (Remember, the court isn’t deciding the merits of the case, only the parent’s request for a preliminary injunction.) But why does the court think the parents will win?

The Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs, substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners’ children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable. The books are unmistakably normative. They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected. Mahmoud v. Taylor

OK, the court thinks the parents have a good case. What about the defendants?

The Court does not accept the Board’s characterizations of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” instruction as mere “exposure to objectionable ideas” or as lessons in “mutual respect.” The storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender. And the Board has specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. That goes beyond mere “exposure.”  Mahmoud v. Taylor

As I’ve already shown, the Board was not merely trying to expose children to these ideas, something the school doesn’t have the right to determine for the children. Rather, the Board encouraged teachers to reinforce a specific viewpoint and reprimand any child who disagrees.

What about the claim that parents can have their children taught somewhere else?

It is no answer that parents remain free to place their children in private school or to educate them at home. Public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot “condition” its “availability” on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise. … Moreover, given that education is compulsory in Maryland, the parents are not being asked simply to forgo a public benefit. They have an obligation—enforceable by fine or imprisonment—to send their children to public school unless they find an adequate substitute they can afford. Mahmoud v. Taylor

So according to the State of Maryland, parents must have an adequate substitute for public school, but the MCPS thinks any parent can simply homeschool? It’s not just a question of the skills of the parent, but the time and money it takes to educate children, especially very young children, who were the target of this policy.

Sotomayor Dissent

I’ve noticed a couple of patterns among the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. First is how often Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson seem to dissent together. Second, how often they seem to just make up “facts” to make their point.

Public schools, this Court has said, are “‘at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.’”… They offer to children of all faith and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.Today’s ruling ushers in that new reality. Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to “subtle” themes “contrary to the religious principles” that parents wish to instill in their children. Mahmoud v. Taylor

Yep, Justice Sotomayor, just ignore all of the facts of the case to promote your advocacy. First, I must point out, that the United States is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Next, I point Justice Sotomayor to her own dissent where in footnote 11 she wrote:

Petitioners conceded that they have no objection “to the books being on the shelf or available in the library. Mahmoud v. Taylor

So if the parents did not object to the books being available in the library, how can Justice Sotomayor claim that the parents were concerned about mere exposure? She then takes that false accusation to claim the court has invented a new right for parents to control exposure to themes contrary to their religious principles. I guess she just ignored the point made in the opinion of the court that, “The Court has “long recognized the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing’ of their children.”

The result will be chaos for this Nation’s public schools. Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools. The harm will not be borne by educators alone: Children will suffer too. Classroom disruptions and absences may well inflict long-lasting harm on students’ learning and development. Mahmoud v. Taylor

Perhaps if the MCPS Board had not ignored the concerns of parents and trampled their right to control the upbringing of their children, there wouldn’t have been so many opt-outs requested. If there is chaos for our public schools, it’s entirely of their own making.

Worse yet, the majority closes its eyes to the inevitable chilling effects of its ruling. Many school districts, and particularly the most resource strapped, cannot afford to engage in costly litigation over opt-out rights or to divert resources to tracking and managing student absences. Schools may instead censor their curricula, stripping material that risks generating religious objections. The Court’s ruling, in effect, thus hands a subset of parents the right to veto curricular choices long left to locally elected school boards. Because I cannot countenance the Court’s contortion of our precedent and the untold harms that will follow, I dissent. Mahmoud v. Taylor

God forbid that schools see themselves as assisting parents in the education of their children, not controlling it. I’m not saying there would be no requests for opt-outs, but their voluminousness points to the schools indoctrinating our children rather than educating them. After all, parents only opt-out because they object to the content the school is teaching.

Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators. That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now.The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent. Mahmoud v. Taylor

What today’s decision threatens is the government’s monopoly on the education (indoctrination) of our children, the idea that the government gets to decide what they are taught and when, and the idea that government owns our children and merely allows us to feed and cloth them.

Look at what Justice Sotomayor fears about this decision: It “constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.” I hate to tell you this Justice Sotomayor, but the Constitution protects parents veto power over what curriculum the school can teach their children. The fact that a majority of people voted for the Board members who are pushing the LGBTQ agenda on children as young as five years old does not deprive parents of the right to control the upbringing of their children.

Conclusion

As the majority of the court has opined:

To begin, we hold that the parents are likely to succeed on their claim that the Board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise. Mahmoud v. Taylor

For that reason, the court held:

Held: Parents challenging the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Mahmoud v. Taylor

At least for now, the children in the MCPS will be protected from the sexualization and indoctrination the Board attempted to force on them over the objection of the parents. I pray that the court’s prediction comes true, and that this type of indoctrination is exposed for the evil it is.