In June 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the extent to which public schools must accommodate parental objections to classroom instruction based on religious beliefs. The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, arose in Montgomery County, Maryland, where the school district declined to provide parents with advance notice or the ability to excuse their children from elementary literacy lessons featuring “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks. The parents argued that the lessons conflicted with their religious beliefs about marriage, gender, and family, and that the district’s refusal to allow opt-outs violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

The dispute began after Montgomery County Public Schools added five storybooks with LGBTQ+ themes to its English language curriculum for kindergarten through fifth grade. After some parents objected, the district initially notified families when the books would be used and allowed students to be excused from related instruction. Less than a year later, however, the district reversed course, announcing that it would no longer give notice or allow students to opt out. District officials stated that the volume of parent objections caused classroom disruption and risked stigmatizing students who remained in class. Parents from several religious backgrounds objected, and when the district refused to reinstate opt-outs, the families filed suit.

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the parents’ request for a preliminary injunction—a temporary court order that would have required the district to allow opt-outs while the lawsuit continued. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the parents had shown only that the school district had exposed their children to ideas they found objectionable, not coercion or pressure to violate their faith. The Supreme Court granted review and ultimately reversed.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that the combination of required classroom use of the storybooks and the district’s refusal to provide notice or opt-outs likely burdened the parents’ free exercise rights by substantially interfering with the religious development of their children. The Court found that the age of the students, the “normative” moral messaging in the books, and the district’s guidance instructing teachers to reinforce those messages and correct students who expressed contrary views created what the Court described as a “pressure to conform.” Because the district permitted opt-outs in other contexts but denied them here, the Court concluded that the district’s approach likely violated the First Amendment.

The Court’s analysis first focused on whether the district’s policy burdened the parents’ right to the free exercise of religion. Relying on its 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Court reaffirmed that parents have a constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children and that public school policies may not “substantially interfere” with that right. The Court rejected the lower courts’ view that a constitutional violation requires proof of coercion or compulsion, explaining that Yoder protects against more subtle interference that threatens to undermine a family’s religious teaching. The Court further rejected the district’s argument that the storybooks simply exposed students to diverse ideas, finding instead that the books conveyed moral messages that conflicted with the parents’ stated religious beliefs.

After finding that the district’s approach likely imposed a burden on religious exercise, the Court applied strict scrutiny, the highest level of constitutional review, to determine whether that burden was permitted under the Constitution. While acknowledging the district had a legitimate interest in maintaining an undisrupted school environment conducive to learning for all students, the Court held that the district’s actions were not narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose. The Court reasoned that the district had not shown why opt-outs would be unworkable in this instance, particularly where the district had continued to allow opt-outs in other areas of instruction, such as health education. The Court also rejected the argument that the parents were free to transfer their children to private schools or homeschool them if they disagreed with the district’s approach, stating that public education is a public benefit that cannot be “condition[ed]” on surrendering constitutional rights. As a result, the Court held that the parents had shown that they were likely to succeed on their claims under the Free Exercise Clause and ordered the district to provide advance notice and an opportunity for children to opt out of the challenged area of instruction pending the completion of the litigation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that the majority had expanded the Free Exercise Clause beyond the Court’s precedent. In her view, prior cases provide protection from government policies that compel or coerce individuals to violate their religious beliefs but do not prohibit policies that merely expose students to ideas that might conflict with their family’s religious beliefs. The dissent warned that requiring schools to provide notice and opt-outs whenever parents object on religious grounds may invite widespread curriculum challenges and impose unmanageable administrative burdens on public schools.

This decision has notable implications for Minnesota school districts. Minnesota already has a parental curriculum review statute, Minn. Stat. § 120B.20, which allows parents to review instructional materials and, if they object, arrange reasonable alternative instruction for their children. However, that statute does not require districts to provide advance notice to parents regarding when particular materials will be used and places the responsibility on parents to initiate an objection.

Although Section 120B.20 remains in effect and was cited approvingly by the Court as an example of an opt-out framework, Mahmoud may signal that, in some situations, constitutional obligations extend beyond the statutory minimum. The decision suggests that where instruction meaningfully implicates a family’s religious upbringing of a child, school districts may need to take proactive steps to avoid infringing Free Exercise rights. Whether that means Minnesota school districts must modify existing procedures is not yet settled, but the decision indicates that a purely reactive opt-out protocol may draw scrutiny if parents are not given reasonable advance notice of materials that may include objectionable content.

In light of the evolving law in this area, it may be prudent for districts to review parent communication practices related to curriculum and consider whether additional notification procedures are appropriate when classroom materials are likely to generate religious objections. Legal counsel can help assess whether current district policies aligned with Section 120B.20 adequately address the constitutional considerations identified in Mahmoud.

This article is intended to provide general information with commentary. It should not be relied on as legal advice. If required, legal advice regarding this topic should be obtained from district legal counsel.

Shannon M. Smith is an attorney with the law firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered. For more information, please contact her at (612) 337-9302 or ssmith@kennedy-graven.com.

© Shannon M. Smith (2025). Used by permission.

Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, is a long-time Business Partner with MASA.