On August 6, 2025, the California Department of Education (“CDE”) released non-binding guidance regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which requires school districts to provide notice and allow parents to opt out of curriculum that undermines the religious beliefs they wish to instill in their children.
The guidance emphasized that the Court’s ruling was based on a set of facts unique to that decision, but distilled three factors from the decision to drive a district’s analysis of when to offer notice and opt-outs:
- The nature of the religious belief and practices being asserted, which CDE understood as part of determining a good-faith nexus between the materials and the threat of the belief being undermined;
- The student’s age, with younger children more likely to be influenced by content than their older counterparts; and
- The context of the exposure, or whether the information is presented in a neutral manner or in a manner that advances a point of view hostile to the parent’s religious beliefs.
Quote: “[T]he Mahmoud ruling should not be interpreted to require or allow the erasure of any particular group from public school curricular content.” (emphasis in original)
Because Mahmoud involved parents seeking to opt out of LGBTQ+-affirming content, the case invites questions about how such topics may be addressed at school. CDE explained that Mahmoud does not alter school district’s obligations under state anti-discrimination laws and other relevant portions of the Education Code that require LGBTQ+ inclusion in school curriculum. Based on this guidance, school districts in California should not avoid age-appropriate curriculum involving LGBTQ+ people. School districts in California should also continue to avoid instruction or activities promoting bias against people on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.
F3 Law is available to consult with its client school districts, including those in California, to discuss policy updates, continuing obligations under state anti-discrimination and other relevant laws, and how Mahmoud v. Taylor may apply in a variety of circumstances.
