On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled (6-3) on MAHMOUD v. TAYLOR to uphold the longstanding constitutional right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children— while utilizing public schools.
Justice Alito authored the 40-page majority opinion, which opened with the following:
The Board of Education of Montgomery County, Maryland (Board), has introduced a variety of “LGBTQ+- inclusive” storybooks into the elementary school curriculum. These books—and associated educational instructions provided to teachers—are designed to “disrupt” children’s thinking about sexuality and gender. The Board has told parents that it will not give them notice when the books are going to be used and that their children’s attendance during those periods is mandatory. A group of parents from diverse religious backgrounds sued to enjoin those policies. They assert that the new curriculum, combined with the Board’s decision to deny opt outs, impermissibly burdens their religious exercise.
Today, we hold that the parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. 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). And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction. Based on these principles, we conclude that the parents are likely to succeed in their challenge to the Board’s policies.
The Supreme Court made it clear that it is not acceptable for a parent’s only remedy to be to remove a child from a public school and place them in a private school. Government schools may not indoctrinate children into sexuality beliefs contrary to their parents’ religious beliefs and wishes.
THE OPINION
Justice Alito’s opinion masterfully countered the assertions used by Montgomery County’s Board of Education to rationalize their spread of progressive DEI and LGBTQ+ ideology to young students against the wishes of their parents. With public school entities sharing tactics nationwide, it is refreshing to see Justice Alito not only validate, but legally defend the thoughts and concerns of parents across America.
Justice Alito’s beautiful, common sense articulation on religious freedom, parental rights, and public schools, has created a path for childhood innocence to return to American classrooms and the national discourse on education.
ARGUMENTS OF INTEREST
Justice Alito’s opinion included numerous arguments with ramifications for parental rights and the freedom of religion in America’s schools.
These books carry with them “a very real threat of undermining” the religious beliefs that the parents wish to instill in their children. Yoder, 406 U. S., at 218. Like the compulsory high school education considered in Yoder, these books impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are “hostile” to their parents’ religious beliefs. Id., at 211. And the books exert upon children a psychological “pressure to conform” to their specific viewpoints. Ibid. The books therefore present the same kind of “objective danger to the free exercise of religion” that we identified in Yoder. Id., at 218.
In other contexts, we have recognized the potentially coercive nature of classroom instruction of this kind. “The State exerts great authority and coercive power through” public schools “because of the students’ emulation of teachers as role models and the children’s susceptibility to peer pressure.” Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578, 584 (1987); see also Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 592 (1992) (“[T]here are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools”). Young children, like those of petitioners, are often “impressionable” and “implicitly trus[t]” their teachers.
We do not need to “wait and see” how a particular book is used in a particular classroom on a particular day before evaluating the parents’ First Amendment claims. We need only decide whether—if teachers act according to the clear and undisputed instructions of the Board—a burden on religious exercise will occur…it is not realistic to expect parents to rely on after-the-fact reports by their young children to determine whether the parents’ free exercise rights have been burdened. In circumstances like these, where the Board has clearly stated how it intends to proceed, the parents may base their First Amendment claim on the Board’s representations.
Public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot “condition” its “availability” on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.
It is both insulting and legally unsound to tell parents that they must abstain from public education in order to raise their children in their religious faiths, when alternatives can be prohibitively expensive and they already contribute to financing the public schools.
For these reasons, we conclude that the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, combined with its no-opt-out policy, burdens the parents’ right to the free exercise of religion.
The Board cannot escape its obligation to honor parents’ free exercise rights by deliberately designing its curriculum to make parental opt outs more cumbersome.
The Board also suggests that permitting opt outs from the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks would be especially unworkable because, when it permitted such opt outs in the past, they resulted in “unsustainably high numbers of absent students.” …When it comes to instruction that would burden the religious exercise of parents, the Board cannot escape its obligations under the Free Exercise Clause by crafting a curriculum that is so burdensome that a substantial number of parents elect to opt out. There is no de maximis exception to the Free Exercise Clause.
…the Board cannot purport to rescue one group of students from stigma and isolation by stigmatizing and isolating another. A classroom environment that is welcoming to all students is something to be commended, but such an environment cannot be achieved through hostility toward the religious beliefs of students and their parents.
GOING FORWARD
There are striking similarities between Maryland and Michigan statute on curriculum related to sex and sexuality. While there may be remaining legal questions in nuanced areas, this supportive ruling from the Supreme Court provides Michigan parents with a renewed opportunity to hold their public schools accountable to protect parental rights and religious freedoms.
We can look to the model of parents in both Maryland and right here in Michigan for future action— where parents have organized, used Parental Opt-Out Forms, and worked to replace school board members who were out of alignment with the protection of parental rights, childhood innocence, and religious freedom.