SCOTUS Backs Student Reading Opt-Outs on Religious Freedom Grounds: First Amendment Analysis

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• The U.S. Supreme Court decision requires a school district in Maryland to give notice to parents when certain "LGBTQ+-inclusive" books will be made available through school classrooms and to allow parents to opt their children out of participating.
• The court said that Montgomery County's policy of not providing notice of these books and not allowing opt-outs violates parents' free exercise of religion.
• Justice Samuel Alito held that the county could not justify this "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion, given that it offers opt-outs from other lessons such as sex education.
• The case will now go back to the lower courts to determine whether the county's "LGBTQ+-inclusive" reading program violates these parents' religious freedom — something that is almost a foregone conclusion given the Supreme Court's holding that such a result is "substantially likely."
• This will almost certainly spur litigation on books on other subjects, and even other lessons, around the country.

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, ruling in favor of the parents who had sought the right to be given notice when certain books in an "LGBTQ+-inclusive" collection would be used in their elementary-school-age children's classroom. It further noted that these parents have the right to opt their children out of participating in various activities related to those books, such as book clubs or reading groups. The court is requiring the notice and opt-out option in order to protect the parents' free exercise of religion — specifically, their ability to guide the religious education of their children — as the case continues to play out in court.

Justice Samuel Alito authored a 6-3 decision in which he said that for parents, "there are few religious acts more important than the religious education of their children," and that this extends beyond the confines of a family's home.

Specifically, the court found:

• The books in this "LGBTQ+-inclusive" collection do not merely expose children to certain ideas; they "are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected."
• The books are likely to interfere with the religious beliefs taught to these children by their parents. The court rejected the idea that parents could simply homeschool their children or send them to private school, saying, "It is both insulting and legally unsound to tell parents that they must abstain from public education in order to raise their children in their religious faiths."
• The "substantial burden" that the LGBTQ+-inclusive reading program places on parents' free exercise of religion cannot be justified. The court acknowledged schools have a "compelling interest" in ensuring that the learning environment is not disrupted by numerous opt-outs and that students should be protected from the "social stigma and isolation" that might result from being opted out in front of their peers. However, it ultimately noted that these interests are undercut by the fact that the school system allows opt-outs for other subjects and activities, such as "family life and human sexuality" classes and some noncurricular activities like birthday parties and other celebrations.

Now what happens?

The court said the school board must provide notice to parents whenever one of the five LGBTQ+-inclusive books at the center of this case, "or any similar book," is to be used in the classroom and must give parents the opportunity to opt their children out. The court also sends the case back to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled in favor of the school district, to reconsider its opinion, applying the Supreme Court's decision. That Court of Appeals will presumably send the case back to the District Court for a full hearing on whether the county's policy of not providing notice of these books and not allowing opt-outs can remain in place over the longer term. However, the Supreme Court's decision signals that the policy will need to be rescinded or significantly revised to accommodate the parents' religious freedom rights.

What does it mean for the country?

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 involved attempts to remove students from a curriculum.

The main impact is that parents will be allowed to assert their religious beliefs more often. They might seek to opt their children out of reading a variety of subjects on religious freedom grounds — and that may look different in application.

It also could extend to other lessons that contradict core religious principles of any kind, as the ruling is not limited to objections to LGBTQ+-inclusive books but protects any instance in which something being taught in schools directly contradicts religious beliefs.

For example, a parent could seek to opt their children out of a science lesson on evolution. Non-Christian parents might opt their children out of reading books that mention a Christian God, participating in certain holiday pageants or singing songs in the chorus.

School districts may also be more cautious in selecting the books or lessons they teach in order to remove the possibility of mass opt-outs.

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 board suggested "that teachers incorporate the new texts into the curriculum in the same way that other books are used, namely, to put them on a shelf for students to find on their own; to recommend a book to a student who would enjoy it; to offer the books as an option for literature circles, book clubs, or paired reading groups; or to use them as a read aloud" with appropriate grade levels identified for each book.

Initially, the Board of Education told 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 instruction involving "family life and human 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 did the parents argue?

When they filed the lawsuit, the parents argued that the lack of an opt-out left 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 claimed 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 argued that these books and topics fall within that general area of gender and sexuality.

The parents said the county did nothing to justify this direct burden on their religious freedom rights. The county provided some reasons for reversing the opt-out policy, all of which were 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 parents said the county failed to consider other ways of achieving these goals. The parents noted 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 did Montgomery County say?

The county said that the parents didn't show they or their children were forced to modify their religious beliefs, which is what the law requires in a free exercise clause case. They simply had to 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, the county argued.

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

Finally, the county explicitly asked that the case be sent back to the federal District Court if the Supreme Court did 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 was justified; the only question that had really been answered to that point was whether a burden on the exercise of religion even existed.