Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Mahmoud v. Taylor

Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFree Exercise ClauseParents' rightsPublic school curriculumPreliminary injunctionsFirst AmendmentFree ExerciseYoder

Facts

Montgomery County Public Schools introduced LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks into its elementary English and Language Arts curriculum and expected teachers to use them as part of instruction. The Board initially allowed parents to receive notice and excuse their children from lessons involving those books, but later rescinded both notice and opt-out accommodations, citing classroom disruption and stigma concerns. The record included storybooks and teacher-guidance materials presenting same-sex marriage and gender identity in affirming terms and instructing teachers how to respond to student objections. The parent-petitioners alleged that mandatory exposure to that instruction undermined their efforts to raise their children according to their religious beliefs about marriage, sex, and gender.

Issue

Whether a public school board likely violates the Free Exercise Clause by requiring elementary-school children to participate in instruction using LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks, while denying parents notice and any opportunity to opt out, when the instruction poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices the parents seek to instill. Also, whether the parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction pending resolution of their suit.

Rule

The Free Exercise Clause protects parents' right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, including in the public-school setting. A government burdens that right when it requires parents to submit their children to instruction that substantially interferes with the children's religious development or poses a very real threat of undermining the beliefs and practices the parents wish to instill. When the burden is of the same character as in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the court proceeds directly to strict scrutiny, and the government must show interests of the highest order pursued through narrow tailoring.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A public elementary school district in Columbus, Ohio requires second graders to participate in weekly read-aloud sessions featuring books that celebrate moral views about family structure and gender identity contrary to some parents' religious teachings. Teacher guidance tells instructors to affirm those views as correct and to tell children that contrary statements are "hurtful," and the district gives no notice or opt-out option.

Parents who sincerely believe marriage is only between a man and a woman and that sex and gender are inseparable seek a preliminary injunction requiring notice and excusal rights. Under the majority's doctrine, what is their strongest argument that the policy burdens free exercise?

Explanation. The majority held that a burden exists when the government requires parents to submit their children to instruction that substantially interferes with religious development or poses a very real threat of undermining the beliefs and practices parents wish to instill. It emphasized that young children, normative materials, teacher reinforcement, and the absence of notice and opt outs made the instruction more than mere exposure. Direct verbal affirmation is not required, internal-affairs reasoning was rejected in the school context, and explicit sexual content was not the touchstone. (Derived from Mahmoud v. Taylor (n.d.).)