On Friday, June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a diverse group of parents from various religious backgrounds seeking to opt-out of instruction involving LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks in Mahmoud v. Taylor. The Court overturned the appellate court’s denial of a preliminary injunction because the Court found the parents had met their initial burden that their children’s exposure to the curriculum undermined their right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. The Court held that compelling exposure to the content—especially as it applied to elementary-aged children—impermissibly burdened the parents’ freedom of religion under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The case involved Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, which had adopted a curriculum that included content about gender identity and sexuality, including books about transgender individuals and same-sex marriages. The district’s governing board had initially allowed parents to opt out of lessons involving these materials on religious grounds. However, the governing board subsequently changed its policy and no longer permitted parents to opt their children out of content that did not align with their religious beliefs—arguing that the change of policy was due, on one hand, to the difficult administrability of opt-outs and, on the other hand, promoted the district’s interest in teaching students diversity. The Court held that forced exposure to the content likely violated the First Amendment as it threatened to undermine a family’s ability to teach and monitor adherence to “sincerely held religious beliefs.” The Court found that the LGBTQ+ inclusive content and lesson plans promoted acceptance of LGBTQ+ lifestyles—especially gender and sexual choice—which the Court found especially problematic when applied to young children. Due to compulsory education laws in Maryland, the plaintiffs were impermissibly forced to make a choice between a public education and private religious education if not provided the opportunity to opt-out of lessons that conflicted with religious beliefs and teachings in the home.
What does this mean for 2025-2026?
The Court’s analysis in Mahmoud is potentially far reaching and provides little guidance on what type of curriculum may be subject to opt-outs or how LEAs are to determine where and how curriculum might impinge on “sincerely held religious beliefs.” At the least, LEAs should draft and create policies that provide parents with notice of when LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula – including storybooks and other materials – will be used and allow parents time to excuse their students from that instruction. It is unclear how broad the Court’s definition of what LGBTQ+ inclusive “instruction” threatens free exercise of religion, as the Court does imply that there might be viewpoint neutral presentations of LGBTQ+ content that would not impinge on religious freedoms and does imply that the threat may be reduced for older students.
The opinion is focused on instruction, and specifically instruction of young children, so it is not clear whether other materials, such as schoolwide messages promoting inclusion or pride flags, are subject to the same notice and opt out rights. Further, LEAs should be mindful of any antidiscrimination or other requirements in their states before considering eliminating LGBTQ+ inclusive content in response to this decision (for example, California Education Code 51204.5).
As the language in the decision is broad, LEAs should also be prepared that parents could raise objections to other curriculum based on religious grounds—including science lessons. The Mahmoud decision does not limit itself to issues of gender or sexuality, but rather focuses on the potential that instruction, especially to young children, could interfere with those children’s separate instruction in religious belief systems.
How can my LEA prepare?
The Court’s decision paid close attention to the district’s religious accommodation policy. LEAs should ensure that their policies related to religious accommodations, controversial topics, parent rights, and related topics are updated. As you update your policies, understand that prior guidance from state agencies may no longer apply. Please be sure to check with the statewide education agencies in your state, as some guidance may no longer apply. For example, current guidance from the California Department of Education states that allowing parents to opt out from only LGBTQ+ related material in sexual education instruction may violate the anti-discrimination provisions of the California Education Code. CDE has not issued updated guidance in light of this decision. Please contact your LEA’s legal counsel to determine whether your policies need updating.
This update can also include a process for issuing notifications and processing opt-outs. The Court’s decision did not set a standard for what constitutes a “sincerely held religious belief” entitling a family to an opt out. LEAs should proceed with caution, absent legal guidance in drafting any new policies or guidance that direct staff to attempt to determine if a religious belief is “sincerely held.”
If you have questions about this Client Alert, please contact the author listed below or the F3 attorney with whom you normally consult.
