Supreme Court Rules Public Schools Must Allow Parents to Opt Children Out of Curriculum Involving LGBTQ+ Books

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297 (2025) concerning curriculum opt outs. The case focused on a Maryland public school district’s decision to stop allowing families to opt children out of class time spent on texts featuring LGBTQ+ characters and stories. The policy change was challenged by a group of parents who objected to the messages of the books on the basis of religion. The Court ruled in favor of the parents, stating they needed to be notified in advance if such materials were going to be used and allowed to excuse their children from class. The holding of Mahmoud impacts board decisions regarding curriculums and policy and addresses some situations where opt-out policies may be required.

The Montgomery County Board of Education (the “Board”) first introduced the selected LGBTQ+ texts during the 2022-2023 school year to increase representation in the English and Language Arts curriculum. The texts highlighted LGBTQ+ characters and stories, including stories featuring same sex marriage and discussions of gender. While the Board originally allowed parents to opt their children out of class time spent reading and discussing the texts, it later moved to end the policy over concerns of classroom disruption given the number of absent students and the “social stigma and isolation” of students who identified with the books and noted their classmates’ absence. While the policy change was implemented at all grade levels, Mahmoud focused on the elimination of the opt-out policy for classrooms from kindergarten through fifth grade. Opt-out policies continued for sexual health curriculums, as required under Maryland law.

In its opinion, the Court addressed the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which protects the rights of individuals to freely exercise their religion. The Court reaffirmed the parental right to direct the religious education of children and noted that “[t]he question in cases of this kind is whether the educational requirement or curriculum at issue would substantially interfer[e] with the religious development of the child or pose a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child.” The Court’s analysis is factually intensive, referencing books and instructional materials, as well as quoting portions that question gender and sexuality and accept conclusions that do not align with all religious doctrines.

In considering whether the Board substantially interfered with the parents’ religious development of their children, the Court heavily relied upon its 1972 decision Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which an Amish community successfully challenged a Wisconsin law requiring students to attend private or public school. In Yoder, the Court noted that high school education “plac[ed] Amish children in an environment hostile to Amish beliefs . . . with pressure to conform to the styles, manners, and ways of the peer group” and “[took] them away from their community, physically and emotionally, during the crucial and formative adolescent period of life,” thus posing a “serious barrier” to integrating the children into the Amish religion. Contrary to the lower courts, the Supreme Court reasoned the general protections recognized in Yoder encompass even the more specific challenge seen in Mahmoud, thus supporting a finding that without the opt-out policy, the Board burdened the parents’ religious exercise.

The Court ruled that parents should not have to “counteract” teaching at home and referenced the state’s supposed “coercive power” in public schools, noting the age of the students in Mahmoud, their impressionability, and their inherent trust in teachers in a classroom setting. The Court also acknowledged that children must attend some form of school as required under Maryland law, and that “[p]ublic education is a public benefit . . . [which] the government cannot condition . . . on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.”  The Court also rejected offering homeschool or private school as alternatives due to the increased associated costs for parents.

In reasoning that the burden placed on the parents in Montgomery County was of the “same character as that imposed in Yoder,” the Court declined to assess whether “the law at issue is neutral or generally applicable.” Instead, the Court noted that opt outs are still available for sexual education courses, as required under Maryland Law, and that “[s]everal States across the country permit broad opt outs from discrete aspects of the public school curriculum without widespread consequences.” Thus, the Court determined the policy was not “narrowly tailored” in such a way to pass muster with the Free Exercise clause.

The Court’s characterization of Yoder and decision in Mahmoud creates some uncertainty in exactly how this factually intensive analysis will apply to other public school districts and their respective policies. School districts should aim to examine curriculum in order to best assess where opt-out opportunities may be implemented and to establish reasonable rationale for why opt-out options may not be offered. Additionally, it is unclear whether the reasoning in Mahmoud will prove to be as supportive of opt-out policies at higher levels of education. This is developing case law that will likely lead to additional challenges in the coming years, and 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.