R]eligious parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate their right to opt their children out of lessons on gender and sexuality. The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, brings a legal challenge to the Montgomery County Board of Education’s decision to deny parents the ability to exempt their children from exposure to storybooks that include topics such as gender transitions and same-sex relationships.
The controversy stems from a reversal in the school board’s policy. Initially, parents were allowed to opt their children out of specific lessons dealing with gender identity, aligning with Maryland law that permits opt-outs from family life and human sexuality instruction. However, in 2023, the board announced that parents would no longer be informed when these lessons were taking place, nor could they opt out their children from this instruction.
The Parents’ Argument
The group of parents behind the lawsuit includes families from various religious backgrounds, including Islam, Christianity, and Eastern Orthodoxy. Represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the parents argue that the school’s policy violates their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. They claim that the lessons, which include books like Pride Puppy and Born Ready, directly contradict their faith, which teaches traditional views of gender and sexuality.
Tamer Mahmoud, one of the lead plaintiffs, expressed concern over the potential impact of these lessons on young, impressionable children. “Our faith teaches that biological sex is a gift from God,” Mahmoud said. “These lessons introduce concepts that conflict with our deeply held beliefs, and we believe parents should have the right to decide if their children are ready to engage with such ideas.”
The plaintiffs are not seeking to ban the curriculum altogether but are asking the court to restore the previous policy that allowed parents to choose whether their children would participate in these lessons.
The School Board’s Position
The Montgomery County Board of Education has defended its decision, asserting that the curriculum is intended to promote inclusivity and foster a supportive environment for LGBTQ+ students. In public statements, board members argued that allowing opt-outs would undermine these efforts and create a segregated environment within the classroom, where some students may feel alienated.
Board members have also pushed back against the parents’ claims, with some likening the opposition to the curriculum to other forms of discrimination. At school board meetings, where hundreds of parents have protested the policy, some board members compared the demands for opt-outs to the promotion of “hate” and “exclusion.”
Legal Questions Before the Court
The legal question at the heart of this case is whether denying parents the right to opt out their children from lessons that conflict with their religious beliefs constitutes a violation of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school board, reasoning that the policy does not impose a substantial burden on the parents’ religious exercise, since parents are still free to discuss these topics with their children outside of school.
However, the parents argue that this ruling overlooks the compulsory nature of public education and that their children are being exposed to ideas that are at odds with their faith, without parental consent. They contend that this violates their right to control the religious upbringing of their children–a principle previously upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark Wisconsin v. Yoder case, which allowed Amish parents to withdraw their children from public school due to religious concerns.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the parents argue that the school board’s refusal to allow opt-outs forces them into an untenable situation: either they violate their religious beliefs or withdraw their children from public schools entirely.
The Court is expected to announce in the coming months whether it will take up the case, potentially setting the stage for a new chapter in the debate over religious freedom in public education.