Mahmoud v. Taylor

Case Description

In fall 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education (“Board”) announced over 20 new “inclusivity” books—books that champion pride parades, gender transitioning, and pronoun preferences for children—for its pre-K through eighth grade classrooms. For example, one book tasks three- and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “[drag] queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Other books advocate a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense” and that doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway.  The curriculum surrounding these books suppresses free speech and independent thinking by having teachers tell students they are “hurtful” if they question these controversial ideologies.

Maryland, like most states across America, requires schools to notify parents when their children will be given classes discussing family life and human sexuality and respects parents’ right to opt their children out of such instruction, and the Board had respected that. At first, parents in Montgomery County were told, consistent with the law, they would be notified when the books from the “Pride” collection were to be read and could opt their children out. The board, however, later reversed this position and issued a statement that it would not notify parents or honor requests to opt out of anything other than the sex-education unit.

The Board cannot refuse parents who want to opt their children out of instruction that violates their religious beliefs on sensitive matters. The Board is unlawfully coming between parents and their kids and targeting them because of their religious beliefs about gender and sexuality.  That violates the Board’s own policies, Maryland law, and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that children are not wards of the state and that parents have the right to make key decisions about the education of their children on such critical matters concerning family life and human sexuality.

A group of parents from variety of faiths including Islam, Catholicism, and Orthodox Christianity objected. They believe that the books are age-inappropriate and emotionally damaging for young children. The parents also believe the books are inconsistent with their religious beliefs, not to mention biological science. Without knowing when the books would be read to their children and unable to opt them out of exposure, this group of parents sued the Board. These parents are not asking for the books to be banned. They simply want to be notified when controversial books emphasizing gender transition or transgender romance will be discussed so they can opt out their children.

Both the district court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them, finding that parents with children enrolled at Montgomery County Public Schools have no right to be notified or to opt out. The parents petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, which it agreed to do.

CLS filed an amicus brief in hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the lower courts’ decisions and defend the rights of parents to determine the education and welfare of their children. CLS’ brief argues that the case falls squarely within the Court’s parental rights decisions and that the Board’s notice and opt-out policy is not generally applicable, which means strict scrutiny applies. The Court heard oral arguments on April 22, 2025.

On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Maryland parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction, which would require the schools to “notify them in advance” when one of the disputed storybooks would be used in their child’s class. The Court found that the introduction of the storybooks, combined with its no-opt-out policy, unconstitutionally burdens the parents’ right to the free exercise of religion. Justice Alito wrote: “A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 218 (1972). In ruling for the parents, the court did not say parents have right to change the lessons and books that were used at school. They could, however, choose to have their children temporarily removed from those classes.