Parents challenge Montgomery County’s refusal to allow exemptions from inclusive storybooks, while school board defends policy as lawful, inclusive, and administrable
On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case brought by a group of parents challenging Montgomery County Public Schools\’ decision to eliminate opt-out options for elementary school lessons involving LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks. The petitioners argue that the mandatory exposure of their children to messages they say conflict with their religious beliefs violates their constitutional rights.
The parents, represented by attorney Eric S. Baxter, are seeking preliminary relief to reinstate opt-out provisions that were removed by the district in March 2023. They claim that without these exemptions, they are forced to choose between public education and their religious upbringing responsibilities.
The case arises from a 2022 curriculum change in Montgomery County, Maryland, introducing a set of “inclusivity storybooks” into classrooms for grades pre-K through 6. The school board initially allowed parents to opt out but reversed that policy, stating that all students needed to receive the instruction to promote inclusivity. The parents argue that their children are now being exposed to content that teaches, among other things, that gender is assigned by doctors and can be changed—claims they say conflict with their faith.
During oral arguments, justices pressed both sides on the implications of religious exemptions in public education. Justice Kagan questioned whether the petitioners’ broad request would mean any religious objection to school content—on any topic—could trigger an opt-out. Justice Barrett emphasized that the core question was whether a burden exists under the Free Exercise Clause, not necessarily whether the opt-out must be granted. Baxter argued that exposing children to material in conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs constitutes a substantial burden, especially in the formative years of early childhood.
Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan scrutinized whether mere exposure, rather than compulsion or participation, truly amounts to coercion. Baxter countered that for some faiths, even passive exposure to certain materials can violate religious tenets. Chief Justice Roberts raised concerns about consistency, noting that Montgomery County allows other opt-outs for reasons such as depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, suggesting selective enforcement.
The U.S. government, represented by Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, sided with the petitioners, arguing that the school district’s current policy improperly burdens religious exercise without satisfying the requirements of neutrality and general applicability.
The school board contends the opt-out system became unmanageable and that permitting exemptions would undercut the inclusivity goals of the program. They maintain that the curriculum simply reflects the existence of different family structures and identities, not an attempt to indoctrinate.
This case could have broad ramifications for how public schools nationwide navigate religious objections to curricular content. A ruling clarifying the burden standard under the Free Exercise Clause—or potentially revisiting the Employment Division v. Smith precedent—could reshape opt-out policies in education and beyond.
A decision is expected by June 2025.