Mahmoud v Taylor: An Upcoming Supreme Court Case about Education and Free Exercise of Religion in a Polarized America
Over the last few years, the American public education system has become the battleground of an intensifying culture war over curriculum content. Oftentimes, confrontations between parents and educators play out in theatrical school board of education meetings likened to SNL skits. In the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, however, parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, have escalated to legal action against the local school board in response to a policy that would end their ability to opt their children out of reading books with LGBTQ+ characters for religious exemptions. Now, the case will be argued before the Supreme Court in the current 2024-2025 term.
Since the pandemic opened up debates over school closure, Americans have become increasingly polarized in their views on education matters: specifically on what teachers should be allowed to say and teach to their students. Topics such as critical race theory, LGBTQ+ representation, sex education, and book bans have been at the forefront of this debate. Parents attend school board meetings to express their strong opinions about these topics. Those discussions often devolve into heated arguments and viral social media outrage. These “culture war” debates have cost school districts nationwide an extra $3.2 billion in the 2023-24 school year; they require hiring extra security and staff presence at meetings, all of which are costly. Furthermore, these school districts, as a result of such tumultuous meetings, have to deal with high teacher turnover. Additionally, members of school boards, which are supposedly nonpartisan bodies, have experienced political polarization during board election season. Faced with questions about the contents of school books and children learning about sexuality and gender in the classroom, people running for a board position are forced to pick sides on these controversial debates.
Mahmoud v. Taylor is a current case concerning a particular school district’s debates on LGBTQ+ curriculum and religious freedom. In October 2022, the school board of Montgomery County, Maryland, decided to get rid of the ability for parents to opt their children out of reading books with LGBTQ+ characters as part of their English Language Arts curriculum. These books included titles like “Pride Puppy” and “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope.” The school board claimed that parents opting their children out of classroom instruction led to increased absences, classroom disruption, and administrative burdens. In response to the new policy, the board faced immediate backlash from parents of varying faiths, who claimed that abolishing the parental opt-out choice violated their First Amendment constitutional rights. These parents argued that they did not want to ban the books, but rather wanted the freedom to choose whether or not their kids should have access to books that explored the topics of sexuality and gender identity in light of potential conflicts with their practiced religious beliefs. After the district court denied the parents’ motion for preliminary injunction and the parent’s appeal to The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was denied, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, thus leaving Mahmoud v. Taylor in their hands.
The key legal issue at stake is whether Montgomery County public schools’ effective mandate on student participation in classroom instruction on sexuality and gender by eliminating the parental opt-out option burdens parents’ constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, as protected under the First Amendment. Past precedent can shed light on how the Supreme Court may interpret this case. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious freedom do not violate the free exercise clause, significantly weakening religious exemption claims. However, more recent decisions have shifted religious liberty jurisprudence in cases. In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia the Court ruled in favor of a Catholic foster agency objecting to placing kids with same-sex couples. The Court distinguished this case from Smith by stating that the city’s policy allowed for discretionary exemptions, thus rendering the law neither neutral nor generally applicable. Another legal issue that the plaintiffs in Mahmoud v. Taylor raised is: whether their fundamental parental rights, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, have been violated by the actions of the school board. Examples of relevant legal precedent include Pierce v. Society of Sisters, where the Supreme Court struck down an Oregon law requiring children to attend public education and held that parents had the right to direct their children’s education. Similarly, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Court reinforced that parents had the right to make decisions about their children’s education, ruling that Amish parents could withdraw their children from school after 8th grade due to religious beliefs.
Presenting a clash between religious and parental rights on the one hand, and public education and inclusivity on the other, Mahmoud v. Taylor highlights growing concerns about the role of public education in shaping children’s understanding of different values. The eighteen authors and illustrators of the specific LGBTQ+ picture books listed in the complaint have released a joint statement defending their works:
“We stand in support of the Montgomery County School District. We oppose censoring or segregating books, like ours, that feature LGBTQ+ people. All families deserve to be seen and heard. To act otherwise is harmful and sends a devastating message to students: that their lives and families are so offensive and dangerous that they can’t even be discussed in school.”
On the other hand, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit public-interest law firm with a mission to protect the free expression of religion for all faiths, stated the importance of parental rights around steering their children’s religious experiences:
“Parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children—an authority parents do not surrender at the schoolhouse door. Teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of most religions. On such core questions, Becket defends the religious authority of parents.”
In fact, Becket Law Firm is a part of the Counsel for Petitioners in Mahmoud v. Taylor, helping represent the group of parents who sued the Montgomery County school board.
As Mahmoud v. Taylor makes its way in front of the Supreme Court bench, the ruling will set an important precedent regarding the intersection between free exercise and public education. It will clarify the parameters that school districts have in shaping their education curriculums, as the outcome of the case is likely to have lasting implications for similar conflicts nationwide. The decision of the Court can either strengthen the authority of public schools to set curriculum policies with little regard for religious identities or it can reshape how schools approach teaching about topics of gender and sexuality in ways that accommodate religion-based concerns. This case is emblematic of a large cultural struggle in the United States where political polarization has turned school board meetings into battlegrounds about curriculum choices. No matter how the Supreme Court rules, we are sure to see further political and legal debates about public education between parents, educators, and the state.
Lavleen Kaur Madahar is a junior concentrating in International and Public Affairs. She is a blog writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be reached at lavleen_madahar@brown.edu.
Yani Ince is a senior concentrating in History and Political Science. She is a blog editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be reached at ianthe_ince@brown.edu.