On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that a group of parents is entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring the school district to notify them about the use of certain books and allow their children to be excused from instruction that substantially interferes with their religious beliefs. Mahmoud v. Taylor, Case No. 24–297 (June 27, 2025). Although the decision focused on issuance of a preliminary injunction, with a final decision on the merits outstanding, the analysis and legal standard applied significantly alter parents’ rights to opt children out of certain instruction. Another issue raised by the decision, but yet to be addressed, is whether the decision can be reconciled with California state law.

Background

In Montgomery County, Maryland, a group of parents objected on religious grounds to storybooks about same-sex families and gender identity that their elementary schools included as required reading. According to the Supreme Court, the storybooks and associated educational instructions provided to teachers were designed to “‘disrupt’ children’s thinking about sexuality and gender.” Initially, the school board’s approach was consistent with its “Guidelines for Respecting Religious Diversity,” which promised to make reasonable accommodations for students’ religious beliefs and practices. The school district notified parents when these storybooks would be taught and permitted their children to be excused from the instruction. Less than a year later, however, the school board rescinded the policy and told parents that it would not give them advance notice when the books would be used and that their children’s attendance during those periods was mandatory.

Parents challenged the policy and claimed it interfered with their ability to pass on their religious views on sexuality and gender to their children. The parents argued that being forced to expose their children to the storybooks violated their fundamental right to freely exercise their religion and direct their children’s religious upbringing. Specifically, the curriculum “substantially interfere[d] with the religious development” of their children and posed “a very real threat of undermining” the religious beliefs and practices they wished to instill in their children. The parents also pointed to a “robust system of exceptions” the school board maintained for the Family Health Curriculum, non-curricular activities such as classroom parties that involve materials or practices in conflict with a family’s religion, emergent multilingual learners, and students with IEPs, arguing that the school board could maintain exceptions to accommodate their religious beliefs.

The school board argued that allowing opt-outs would result in significant disruptions to the classroom environment and expose students to social stigma and isolation. The school board also argued that the curriculum content was not discrete or predictably timed (unlike the Family Health Curriculum), making opt-outs unmanageable. Additionally, the school board pointed to prior experience with opt-outs that had led to high numbers of absent students.

Decision

The Supreme Court recognized that mandatory instruction that conflicts with families’ religious beliefs implicates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court determined that school districts must demonstrate a compelling interest and narrow tailoring to justify refusing to allow opt-outs from instruction based on sincerely held religious beliefs. While the Supreme Court noted that schools have a “compelling interest in having an undisrupted school session conducive to the students’ learning,” a blanket no-opt-out policy is not necessary to promote that interest when schools permit opt-outs in a variety of other circumstances. In other words, and significantly for school districts, blanket no-opt-out policies will be much harder to defend going forward, particularly when educational content presents messages that conflict with parents’ religious beliefs.

Impact

This decision leaves several questions unanswered and may well conflict with current state law. In California, school districts must permit certain opt-outs from sexual health education (California Healthy Youth Act), but California state law prohibits opt-outs from LGBTQ+- inclusive curriculum (FAIR Education Act). To date, the California Department of Education has not published guidance interpreting the Supreme Court decision in relation to state law, but school districts will need to carefully navigate these requirements while continuing to comply with their nondiscrimination obligations and support comprehensive student learning.

This decision does not require school districts to eliminate LGBTQ+ inclusive content from the curriculum. It also does not wholesale override California anti-discrimination laws or obligations under the FAIR Education Act. While it may broaden the circumstances in which opt-outs must be available, it does not give parents the right to opt out of any curriculum they dislike. School districts will need to ensure they are pursuing their educational objectives while reasonably accommodating and respecting parents’ and students’ “Free Exercise” rights.

School districts should consider taking several immediate steps: First, school districts should review and clarify processes to facilitate parents’ well-established rights under California law to receive information from their school and participate in their child’s education. This includes reasonable observation of their child’s classroom, meeting their child’s teachers and principals, and examining the curriculum materials of the class or classes in which their child is enrolled. Second, school districts should ensure staff are well-trained to relay parent requests about curriculum to district administration so that consistent processes are applied to individual requests. Third, school districts should review and revise board policies and administrative regulations that may be impacted by this decision; including, for example, procedures for responding to parent concerns regarding instruction that are set forth in Board Policy/Administrative Regulation 6144 – Controversial Issues and Board Policy/Administrative Regulation 6141.2 – Recognition of Religious Beliefs and Customs as well as Board Policy/Administrative Regulation 5020 – Parental Rights and Responsibilities. Fourth, school districts should begin exploring how alternative educational activities and lessons will be accessible and provided to students who are granted an appropriate opt-out.

School districts should work with their legal counsel to address the decision’s complex and novel issues. In future situations, the specific facts will very likely differ from those considered in Mahmoud. For this reason, careful and individualized analysis will be particularly important.

If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact a DWK attorney.