July 1, 2025
Written by Shawn McLain & Ashley Wicks
On June 27, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a significant decision in Mahmoud et al. v. Taylor et al., holding that parents, who were Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox, challenging the Montgomery County Board of Education’s introduction of certain “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with the board’s decision to withhold parental opt outs from that instruction, were entitled to a preliminary injunction.
The Court’s decision has immediate implications for public school districts, especially those navigating curriculum decisions around topics such as gender identity and sexual orientation.
Background of the Case
The case arose from Montgomery County Public Schools in the Washington D.C. suburbs, where the local Board of Education incorporated a series of LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks into the elementary curriculum for students in kindergarten through fifth grade. Initially, the district allowed parents to opt their children out of this instruction. The district later eliminated the opt-out policy and declined to notify parents when the books would be used.
Several families claimed the books conflicted directly with their religious teachings. These families brought suit, seeking a preliminary injunction that would allow them to excuse their children from instruction involving the books while litigation proceeded.
The Court’s Decision
In a 6 to 3 decision authored by Justice Alito, the Court ruled in favor of the parents, entitling them to a preliminary injunction. Given the school district’s mandatory inclusion of the storybooks without parental notice or opt-out rights, the Court concluded that the parents would likely succeed in their challenge to the district’s policies.
The Court rejected the idea that parents could simply homeschool or send children to private schools, noting that public education is a public benefit and that parents have a legal obligation to send their children to school. It also dismissed the suggestion that families could counteract the instruction at home or seek legislative change by suggesting that this had no bearing on a First Amendment analysis.
In granting the preliminary injunction, the Court ordered the district to notify parents in advance of curriculum involving LGBTQ+-inclusive materials and to allow students to be excused from that instruction pending further proceedings.
Implications for Public Schools
The Court’s holding applies nationwide. School districts should be aware of the following potential implications:
- Opt-Out Rights May Be Required: If instructional materials conflict with a student’s religious beliefs, the district may need to provide opt-out accommodations.
- Policy Updates May Be Needed: Schools may need to revise guidelines and administrative procedures that address religious accommodations in curriculum matters. Policies limiting opt-outs should be scrutinized in light of the Mahmoud case.
- Training for Educators: Teachers and administrators should receive clear training on how to handle student and parent questions and concerns about instructional content and on how to avoid infringing religious rights.
We’re Here to Help
For further guidance on revising district policies, handling requests for religious accommodation, or developing and administering training on these topics, please contact Shawn McLain, Ashley Wicks, or any member of our Education Law team at Mickes O’Toole.
