The Supreme Court reaffirms that the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children do not end at the schoolhouse entrance.
In a landmark decision for religious liberty, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 (U.S. 2025), that public schools must provide religious parents the ability to opt their children out of classroom materials that substantially burden their religious beliefs. The 6-3 opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, concluded that denying such accommodations violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Montgomery County Public Schools (“MCPS”) in Maryland adopted a new English curriculum in 2022 that included books with LGBTQ+ themes for children as young as three. Parents, many of whom held traditional religious beliefs, requested notice and an opt-out option. While MCPS initially allowed it, the school board later revoked the accommodation, citing that administrative burdens and concerns about stigmatizing LGBTQ+ students. The parents sued, arguing the policy infringed upon their religious rights.
The core question was whether MCPS’s refusal to allow opt-outs from certain instructional materials constituted a substantial burden on the parents' religious exercise under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.
The Court sided with the parents, holding that compelling young children to engage with instructional materials that affirmatively contradict their family’s sincerely held religious beliefs imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. The majority emphasized that public education cannot come at the cost of fundamental rights, particularly the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
In reaching its decision, the Court grounded its reasoning in long-standing precedent. It cited Pierce v. Society of Sisters to reaffirm that “the child is not the mere creature of the State,” and relied heavily on Wisconsin v. Yoder, which recognized that compulsory education must yield when it substantially interferes with sincere religious convictions. Unlike Yoder, which involved parents withdrawing their children from school entirely, Mahmoud extends that protection to curriculum-level participation, where required exposure to certain materials presents a direct conflict with a family’s faith.
The majority rejected the school district’s argument that the curriculum was neutral and generally applicable. It found that the absence of religious accommodation, especially for children as young as three, crossed a constitutional line. Because the policy placed meaningful pressure on families to forgo their religious teachings, the Court held that strict scrutiny applied, and that the school board failed to justify its refusal to allow opt-outs.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, warned that the majority’s approach effectively constitutionalizes a “parental veto” over public school curricula. The Justice accused the Court of “disregarding decades of precedent” affirming that schools may expose children to ideas that conflict with their families’ beliefs, so long as the instruction is not coercive. The dissent also criticized the majority’s fact-sensitive test as “subjective” and “difficult for lower courts to apply.”
The dissent points out that this ruling expands the scope of the Yoder decision by clarifying that, even in the absence of coercion, substantial burdens on a parent’s religious upbringing of their children may trigger strict scrutiny. Justice Sotomayor notes that the majority’s decision suggests that schools may not rely on the neutrality of a curriculum, alone, if its implementation places meaningful religious pressure on students.
This case affirms that public schools must tread carefully when designing curricular content that touches on deeply held moral or religious beliefs. While inclusivity remains a valid goal, schools must balance it against constitutional protections for religious liberty, particularly when instruction is aimed at very young children and presented as “affirming” rather than “merely informational.”
If you have any questions about the legal implications of this case or other matters related to school law, please contact the attorney with whom you regularly work at Airdo Werwas, LLC, or Michael A. Airdo at mairdo@airdowerwas.com.