Supreme Court Decides Mahmoud v. Taylor

On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297, holding that parents challenging the Montgomery County [Maryland] Board of Education’s curriculum including certain “LGBTQ+ inclusive” storybooks, along with the Board’s decision to disallow parental opt-outs from the instruction, are entitled to a preliminary injunction to protect their free exercise of religion.

In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced “LGBTQ+ inclusive” storybooks into the public school curriculum. A group of parents sought to have their children excused from instruction involving those books. The Board initially allowed children to be excused from instruction but later rescinded the parental opt-out policy because it “could not accommodate the growing number of opt out requests without causing significant disruptions to the classroom environment.” 

Several parents sued, claiming the Board’s curriculum and recission of the opt-out policy infringed on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion. The petitioners sought a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the Board from forcing their children to read, listen to, or discuss the texts over the objection of the parents. The district court refused to grant the requested injunctions, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit, holding that the parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction. The Court held that the parents were likely to succeed on their claim that the Board’s policies burdened their religious exercise by substantially interfering with the religious development of their children and imposing an unacceptable burden on religious exercise. According to the Court, the texts conveyed a normative message on the subjects of sex and gender, beyond mere exposure to other ideas.

The Court went on to hold that the burden placed on the parents’ religious exercise did not survive strict scrutiny. The Court concluded that without an injunction, parents would suffer an irreparable injury and that an injunction would be equitable and within the public interest. 

Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.