A century ago, the Supreme Court handed down one of its most important cases about education. On June 1, 1925, the court struck down an Oregon statute requiring all students to attend public school – a law critics argued was meant to limit faith-based schools, at a time when anti-Catholic bias was still common in parts of the United States.

The majority opinion in Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Name of Jesus and Mary included a now-famous dictum about parents’ rights to shape their children’s upbringing. According to the court, “the child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

Soon, the Supreme Court is expected to release another decision around parental beliefs and education: Mahmoud v. Taylor. The plaintiffs are parents who want to excuse their children from public school lessons involving storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters – lessons they assert contradict their religious beliefs.

As someone who teaches education law, I believe this is perhaps the court’s most significant case on parental rights since Pierce. Mahmoud raises questions not only about religious freedom, but also about educators’ ability to determine curricula, and public education in a pluralistic society.

Picture-book debate

Controversy arose during the 2022-23 school year in Montgomery County, Maryland’s largest school district, when officials approved various storybooks with LGBTQ+-inclusive themes to be incorporated into the English language-arts curriculum for preschool and elementary students.

Some parents challenged the materials, including “Pride Puppy!”, a picture book the board later removed from use. Originally approved for preschool and pre-K, the story portrays a family whose puppy gets lost at a LGBTQ+ Pride parade, devoting a page to each letter of the alphabet. At the end of the book, a long “search and find” list of words for children to go back and look for in the pictures of the parade includes “[drag] queen” and “king,” “leather” and “lip ring.”

Other materials for older children included stories about same-sex marriage, a transgender child and nonbinary bathroom signs.

Parents who objected to the use of these materials on religious grounds sought to excuse their children from lessons using them. The parents basically argued that requiring their children to participate compelled or coerced them to go against their families’ religious beliefs.

Initially, officials agreed to allow opt-outs for elementary schoolers whose parents objected to the materials. However, a day later they changed their minds. Since then, school officials cited concerns about absenteeism, the feasibility of accommodating opt-out requests, and a desire to avoid stigmatizing LGBTQ+ students or families as reasons for their policy.

A group of Muslim, Orthodox Christian and Catholic families challenged the board’s refusal to excuse their children from lessons using the disputed materials.

The federal trial court, however, rejected the parents’ claim that having no opt-outs violated their right to due process.

Parents appealed, and the 4th Circuit affirmed in favor of the school board 2-1. The court added that officials had not violated the parents’ First Amendment rights to freely exercise their faith. “There’s no evidence at present that the Board’s decision not to permit opt-outs compels the Parents or their children to change their religious beliefs or conduct, either at school or elsewhere,” the panel concluded.

The dissenting judge stridently countered. Officials violated the parents’ free exercise rights by forcing them “to make a choice,” he wrote, between “either adher[ing] to their faith, or receiv[ing] a free public education for their children.” He also noted that the board’s opt-out policy was not neutral toward religion, because under Maryland regulations, children may be excused from sex-ed lessons.

In January 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the parents’ appeal, addressing whether the schools are burdening parents’ free-exercise rights.

Court record

In their brief to the Supreme Court and oral arguments, the parents cited Wisconsin v. Yoder, a Supreme Court ruling from 1972. The court found that Amish parents did not have to send their children to school after the eighth grade, which the families argued would violate their religious beliefs. Amish communities descend from Anabaptist Christians who fled persecution in Europe and emphasize living simply, eschewing many modern technologies.

In Yoder, the justices agreed with the parents that their children received all the education they needed in their home communities. Under the First Amendment, parents have the right “to guide the religious future and education of their children,” the majority wrote, a matter “established beyond debate.”

During oral arguments for Mahmoud in April 2025, some justices briefly discussed another precedent: the Supreme Court’s 1943 judgment in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, resolved at the height of U.S. involvement in World War II. Here, three parents who were Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to have their children participate in public schools’ flag salute and Pledge of Allegiance because they viewed it as a form of idolatry contrary to their religious beliefs. Others objected to the salute as “being too much like Hitler’s.”

The court reasoned that educators could not compel students to participate, because forcing children – or anyone – to engage in activities inconsistent with their beliefs is contrary to their First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.

Viewed together, these cases highlight how the court has granted parents significant leeway to exempt their children from educational activities inconsistent with their religious beliefs.

Questions at court

During oral arguments, a majority of justices appeared to support the parents’ request to excuse children from lessons involving the books about LGBTQ+ characters.

The board’s attorney argued that students did not have to agree with the books’ messages, simply to participate in the lesson. Being exposed to an idea “does not burden free exercise,” he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts, however, queried whether it is realistic for 5-year-olds to understand that distinction. He asked, “Do you want to say you don’t have to follow the teacher’s instructions, you don’t have to agree with the teacher? I mean, that may be a more dangerous message than some of the other things.”

Other conservative justices also appeared skeptical of the idea that the lessons were merely exposing young children to ideas, but not instilling moral lessons. The storybooks do not simply explain that some people believe something and others do not, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested; they inform students that “this is the right view of the world.” Similarly, Justice Neil Gorsuch remarked that telling students that “some people think X, and X is wrong and hurtful and negative” is “more than exposure.”

“What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?” Justice Samuel Alito asked.

Conversely, Justice Elena Kagan acknowledged that parents’ concerns were “serious,” but wondered how to draw limits on opt-out policies. Did the parents’ argument suggest that anytime “a religious person confronts anything in a classroom that conflicts with her religious beliefs or her parents’ that – that the parent can then demand an opt-out?”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed the plaintiffs’ attorney on whether “the mere exposure to things that you object to” really counts as coercion. And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned why, even if opt-outs are not allowed, public schools teaching “something that the parent disagrees with” is coercive, given that homeschooling and private schools are legal.

Mahmoud raises challenging questions about curricular content, parental control and free exercise of religion – questions the court will hopefully resolve. A ruling is expected in June or early July 2025.

Charles J. Russo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.