Massachusetts District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Allowing LGBTQ+ Curriculum Opt-Out

On December 30, 2025, the Massachusetts District Court granted a preliminary injunction allowing a father to opt his five-year-old son out of public-school curriculum featuring LGBTQ+ characters and stories. The case, Alan L. v. Lexington Pub. Sch., is the first in Massachusetts to rely on the Supreme Court decision Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297 (2025). Both cases are grounded in rights protected under the free exercise clause.

In Mahmoud, the Supreme Court established that where religious rights under the free exercise clause are burdened, parents must be provided advanced notice and opportunity to opt their children out of “LGBTQ+ inclusive” classroom instruction. Alan L., a parent whose child attends Lexington Public Schools (“LPS”), contends that the LPS curriculum opt-out policy is “effectively unavailable . . . because [LPS] require more specificity in his requests than he can provide.” After asking for and receiving a “high-level overview” of his son’s curriculum, Alan L. made multiple attempts to opt his child out of “‘any instruction or other required activities that normalize or promote LGBTQ identities or lifestyles,’ as well as the ‘Kindergarten ‘DEI Curriculum.’” LPS denied each of these requests, claiming they were overly broad and that they lacked specific objections needed for meaningful review. At one point during LPS and Alan L.’s exchanges, his son participated in class time dedicated to a book he contends violated his requests.

When granting the preliminary injunction, the District Court focused on analyzing ten books identified by Alan L. as listed in his son’s curriculum: Prince and Knight; Families, Families, Families!; All Are Welcome; Maiden and Princess; Stella Brings the Family; Lovely; Love Makes a Family; A Family is a Family is a Family; This Day in June; and You Have a Voice. In applying the two-step framework of Mahmoud, the District Court first determined the books, which contained “a range of content touching on LGBTQ+ issues,” likely substantially burdened the parent’s free exercise rights due to the material’s direct or subtle discussions of gender and sexuality. The court then noted the policy and practices of LPS are unlikely to survive a strict scrutiny analysis, which would require LPS to show the specific denial of Alan L.’s opt out “serve[d] the compelling interest [of] . . . avoiding classroom disruption.”

While the District Court did acknowledge some factual differences between Alan L. v. Lexington Pub. Sch. and Mahmoud, such as differences in the minimum age for compulsory education and the lack of evidence establishing a reasoning behind why the LGBTQ+ materials at LPS were introduced, it ultimately determined that the “broad language” of Mahmoud controlled its decision. It should be noted, however, that while the District Court acknowledged the requested opt out included “Kindergarten DEI Curriculum,” the preliminary injunction order made no reference to such materials. Rather, the District Court noted the question before the court was “certainly not whether Mahmoud opens the door to other complaints, by other parents, about other issues.” Additionally, in recognizing LPS’s concerns regarding other potential opt outs, the District Court noted other contexts “are not directly implicated in this case. . . .” Whether the DEI curriculum opt out is included in the court’s final decision remains to be seen.

School Districts should be mindful in responding to parental inquiries regarding curriculum and opt-out policies. Additionally, students should likely not be involved in classroom instruction while opt-out requests are under review when there is doubt over whether such materials might violate requests. We will continue to provide relevant updates as needed. If you have questions regarding opt out policies and/or the school law generally, please contact any of our attorneys.

This update is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.