Student Reading Opt-Outs on Religious Freedom Grounds: What Does SCOTUS Say?

Key takeaways:

• This case looks at whether parents can demand to opt their children out of reading certain books that are made available through school classrooms, on religious freedom grounds.
• The U.S. Supreme Court appears likely to rule in favor of the parents, with a majority of justices viewing the opt-out as necessary to the exercise of religious freedom and a minority concerned that this will lead to an unending string of opt-out requests related to books.
• Regardless of the ruling, it is very likely that the Supreme Court will send this case back to the U.S. District Court in Maryland for further consideration.
• A ruling is expected from the Supreme Court in late June.

On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case that will decide whether the First Amendment gives parents the right to opt their children out of reading certain books on religious freedom grounds. specifically, the parents in this case do not want their children to be exposed to books that are contrary to their religious beliefs on gender or sexuality. In this case, an opt-out option would mean children would not be required to read or listen to a teacher read books that their parents object to and would be excused from class during group read-alongs and discussions of these books.

The justices gave thorough consideration to both sides but seem poised to side with the parents. Three justices expressed concern that allowing these opt-outs would open a door to an unlimited number of similar requests — not only in this school district but across the country — and that these requests would go well beyond simply opting out of assigned reading, to include specific teachers and perhaps assigned classes. But most of the justices saw this as a minor concern.

It seems very likely that the court will deliver an opinion sympathetic to the parents’ concerns that the lack of an opt-out option presents a burden on their religious beliefs, continuing its expansion of free exercise of religion that has occurred over the past few years.

Now what happens?

Either way, this case will likely end up back in the federal District Court, but the Supreme Court’s ruling would determine whether the opt-out policy remains in place while this continues to play out and the likelihood of an eventual win for either side.

If the Supreme Court rules for the parents, it could reinstate the opt-out policy immediately, while the lower court continues proceedings. What those ongoing legal proceedings look like could take different forms:

• The Supreme Court could send this back to the lower court to determine whether a burden on the parents’ free exercise of religion in this case is justified by a compelling interest and is as limited in scope as possible.
• The school system could back down entirely, leaving the opt-out policy in place.

In order for the Supreme Court to rule for the parents, it must find that the parents have a strong likelihood of showing their free exercise of religion has been infringed upon. And if the court reaches this result — even with what the Court of Appeals described as incomplete information presented by the parents — it seems likely that a federal District Court would reach the same result, especially once the parents provide more facts about how their free exercise of religion is burdened.

A ruling for the school system means that the opt-out policy would remain in place while the parents proceed with their case — perhaps for months or years. Both sides will continue to make legal arguments, and the parents will try to build a stronger base of facts to show that their religious freedom has been infringed upon.

What does it mean for me?

This is the latest in a series of cases where the Supreme Court is being asked to balance some form of ideological belief against schools’ ability to set their own curricula — albeit with a twist: Rather than seeking to remove books from the classroom, the case essentially involves attempts to remove students from an assigned curriculum.

The main impact will be a changed landscape in terms of the books taught in public school classrooms or available in public school libraries. Parents might seek to opt their children out of books for any number of reasons — and that may look different in application.

A win for the parents could give parents nationwide a greater opportunity to opt their own children out of required reading instead of removing or restricting access to books in public school classrooms and libraries, which affects a larger number of children in a given class, grade or school.

However, the opposite result may occur: School districts will be able to remove books (especially LGBTQ+ books) entirely under the now-legal justification that forcing children to read them violates the free exercise of religion.

And the court’s decision could go beyond books. The free exercise of religion might be used as a justification for parents to opt students out of all manner of school activities, such as sex education classes, holiday themed assemblies and recitals, and even classroom assignments.

How did this case start?

In November 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education created a new “inclusive storybook” program as part of its English language arts curriculum. The largest school district in Maryland added books with LGBTQ+ characters, as recommended by staff members, students, parents and other community members. A committee of five Board of Education employees then reviewed and approved these books. The books were to be made available in classes but not required to be taught, and appropriate grade levels were identified for each book.

Initially, the Board of Education promised parents they would be notified and could opt their children out when the storybooks were read. This policy was consistent with a Maryland state law that requires parents be given the opportunity — after proper notice — to opt their children out of instruction about “family life and human sexuality.”

But the Board of Education reversed itself almost immediately and said the opt-out policy would not apply to this inclusive storybook program — meaning no notice to parents and no opportunity to opt-out, even as parents still could opt their children out of the sex education portion of health classes.

How did the case get to the Supreme Court?

A group of six parents whose religious backgrounds range from Catholic to Muslim to Ukrainian Orthodox filed a lawsuit in a federal District Court in Maryland. They did not seek removal of the books from schools or cancellation of the storybook program. They focused strictly on the lack of an opt-out option, arguing the school district didn’t follow the Maryland state law requiring that books involving gender and sexuality have an opt-out option and that the lack of such an option violates their right to free exercise of religion. The parents requested that the Board of Education be required to allow them to opt their children out of reading these books while the case proceeds.

Both a federal District Court and federal Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Montgomery County. These two courts denied the parents’ request to have the opt-out policy reinstated, saying there was not enough evidence that the inclusive storybook program violated the free exercise clause. The appeals court seemed to emphasize that its ruling was partly based on the fact that the parents didn’t present a “robust record” of information supporting their request.

What do the parents argue?

The parents argue that the lack of an opt-out leaves them no choice but to decide between exposing their children to ideas that are contrary to their religious beliefs and pulling their children out of school altogether. They claim this choice violates the free exercise clause by “substantially interfering with the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children” — citing a 1972 Supreme Court decision that allowed Amish parents to remove their children from schools before the state-approved age of 16.

The free exercise clause has long required states to defer to parents on how their children will be educated in the areas of gender and sexuality, as the Maryland law allowing parents to opt out of sex education classes shows. The parents argue that these books and topics fall within that general area of gender and sexuality.

The parents say the county has done nothing to justify this direct burden on their religious freedom rights. The county has provided some reasons for reversing the opt-out policy, all of which are speculative, general assertions unsupported by evidence: avoiding “significant disruptions” in the classroom; ensuring a “safe and conducive” learning environment free from “social stigma and isolation”; and complying with state and federal nondiscrimination laws.

Even if there was evidence of necessary reasons to prevent students from opting out of these books, the county failed to consider other ways of achieving these goals. The parents note that the books could remain in the classroom but not be part of any official read-aloud or full classroom discussions. Or teachers could discuss the general concepts of treating everyone with respect and dignity without promoting any particular books or viewpoints.

What does Montgomery County say?

The county says that the parents haven’t shown they or their children have been forced to modify their religious beliefs, which is what the law requires in a free exercise clause case. They simply must decide whether to let their children read a book or perhaps find a different school. Attending public schools often involves making certain trade-offs in terms of your beliefs versus what is taught.

According to the county, there is no evidence that mere exposure to these books is anything close to actual instruction — much less indoctrination — about the ideas they contain; this is simply a neutral educational policy with no antireligious discrimination.

Finally, the county explicitly asks that the case be sent back to the federal District Court if the Supreme Court does find there is a burden on the parents’ free exercise of religion. That would be necessary, according to the county, to determine whether that burden is justified; the only question that has really been answered so far is whether a burden on the exercise of religion even exists.