Federal court enters final judgment following Supreme Court reversal in religious upbringing case
A federal judge signed a consent judgment on February 19, 2026, ending a three year legal battle between Montgomery County parents and their local school board. The order requires the Montgomery County Board of Education to provide advance notice when specific books are used in classrooms and to excuse children from that instruction upon parental request.
Tamer Mahmoud, Enas Barakat, and other parents filed the lawsuit in 2023 after the school district removed an option for parents to opt their children out of curriculum materials featuring LGBTQ+ themes. The parents argued this policy violated their First Amendment rights regarding the religious upbringing of their children. While the district court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals initially ruled against the parents, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed those decisions in 2025.
The final judgment establishes that the plaintiffs are the prevailing parties on their First Amendment Free Exercise claim. The Board of Education must now implement a notification system to keep parents informed about instructional materials. This includes emailing descriptions of all approved texts and videos to parents before each marking period.
Schools must also identify materials that specifically address family life and human sexuality objectives within the Maryland Comprehensive Health Education Framework. Teachers are required to provide accurate information to any parent who asks when these materials will be used in class.
The agreement resolves all issues in the complaint and binds the Board’s officials, agents, and successors. While the parents won on their primary constitutional claim, they agreed to dismiss their remaining claims with prejudice. The parties will determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs through a separate agreement.
The court will keep jurisdiction over the case to enforce the terms of the permanent injunction. The school board is now prohibited from appealing any ruling that adopts this settlement.
Legal analysis
This case centers on the fundamental right of parents to direct the religious and moral education of their children. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the state cannot strip parents of this authority simply because a child enters a public school building. When a school district introduces materials that conflict with a family’s core religious beliefs, the Free Exercise Clause provides a shield.
The settlement reflects a return to a standard of accommodation. By requiring advance notice and an opt out mechanism, the court balances the administrative interests of the school board with the constitutional rights of the families. It avoids the heavy handed approach of forcing children to participate in instruction that their parents find religiously objectionable.
The use of a permanent injunction ensures that these protections are not temporary. It creates a clear, self executing system where transparency is the default. Parents no longer have to guess when sensitive topics will be introduced in the classroom.
From a procedural standpoint, the dismissal of the remaining claims suggests both sides sought finality. The Board of Education accepted the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause rather than continuing a cycle of appeals. This judgment sets a clear rule for how this specific district must handle religious objections to supplemental curriculum moving forward.
Case Caption: Mahmoud v. Taylor
Date of Decision: February 19, 2026
Link to Decision: Consent Judgment in Mahmoud v. Taylor
TLDR (Too Long / Didn’t Read Summary)
A federal judge issued a final consent judgment on February 19, 2026, requiring the Montgomery County Board of Education to allow parents to opt their children out of instruction involving certain books. The order follows a 2025 Supreme Court decision that favored parents who argued the district’s no-opt-out policy violated their religious freedom. Under the new permanent injunction, the school board must provide advance notice of curriculum materials, including videos and books, that cover family life and human sexuality. The district will send email descriptions of these texts to parents before each marking period. This settlement ends years of litigation, with the court declaring the parents as the prevailing parties. The school board is now legally bound to provide these accommodations and cannot appeal the terms of this specific agreement.
Stay informed on religious liberty
If you value updates on constitutional rights and parental authority, please like and share this article. You can subscribe to the ReligiousLiberty.TV blog at religiouslibertytv.substack.com for breaking news on court decisions and case information. Subscribing ensures you receive direct access to legal documents and expert analysis as these cases develop.
AI Disclaimer
This article was generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence. While the content is based on the provided court documents, users should verify all facts against official legal records.
Legal Disclaimer
This report does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to talk to licensed attorneys about their particular situations and legal rights.
SEO Tags
parental rights, First Amendment, Montgomery County schools, religious freedom, education law
