Outline drawing of the United States Capitol building on a stack of books

July 2, 2025

Supreme Court Decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor Raises New Questions for Public Schools and Districts

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a landmark Free Exercise Clause case with significant implications for public education. In a 6–3 opinion authored by Justice Alito, the Court ruled in favor of a diverse group of religious families who challenged a Maryland school district’s refusal to allow them to opt their children out of classroom lessons involving LGBTQ+-inclusive materials. The families alleged that the lack of an opt-out accommodation substantially burdened their right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.

This decision marks a significant shift in how courts evaluate religious accommodation claims in public education and raises questions about implementation for schools, districts, and educational agencies nationwide.

Case Background

The case arose in Montgomery County, Maryland, where Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) introduced a series of storybooks that included LGBTQ+ characters and families. Initially, MCPS permitted parents to opt their children out of instruction using those materials. However, the district later reversed course, citing administrative burden and concerns about stigmatizing students from LGBTQ+ families.

Multiple families—representing Muslim, Jewish, and Christian faiths—filed suit, seeking a preliminary injunction. They argued that the revised policy violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the injunction, applying the framework from Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which generally upholds neutral and generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religion. The Supreme Court reversed.

The Court’s Holding

In its 6–3 decision, the Court held that the parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction because they had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their Free Exercise claim. The majority concluded that MCPS’s refusal to provide opt-outs substantially burdened the parents’ religious exercise and therefore triggered heightened constitutional scrutiny.

The Court relied on Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), emphasizing that the state's interest in uniform instruction does not automatically override parents’ constitutional rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children, stating that “[t]he Board’s introduction of the LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks—combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt-outs—substantially interferes with the religious development of their children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable.”

A Departure from Precedent

The Court signaled a meaningful departure from the longstanding standard in Smith, which held that neutral and generally applicable laws are not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause. The Mahmoud majority clarified that “when a law imposes a burden of the same character as that in Yoder, strict scrutiny is appropriate regardless of whether the law is neutral or generally applicable.”

As a result, the Court applied strict scrutiny—a demanding standard under which a law must further a “compelling governmental interest” and be “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest. See Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522, 541 (2021); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993).

In this case, the majority found that MCPS’s refusal to allow opt-outs did not satisfy this standard.

What This Means for Schools and Educational Agencies

The Mahmoud decision raises the bar for justifying policies that burden religious beliefs in public education, even if those policies are facially neutral. School leaders should act quickly to assess their current curriculum and accommodation policies.

Key Takeaways:

1.     Training and Legal Compliance Support
Staff should be trained on the legal standards governing religious accommodations and parental opt-outs. Blanket denials—even under neutral policies—may now violate the Free Exercise Clause.

2.    Broader Implications Beyond LGBTQ+ Materials
Though the case involved LGBTQ+-inclusive content, the precedent could be applied to any other areas where religious objections may arise.

3.    Unclear Standards Increase the Risk of Litigation
The Court did not articulate precise standards for when religious accommodations must be granted, leaving schools with little guidance and increased legal exposure.

How Sligo Law Group Can Help

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor creates new legal obligations and uncertainties for public schools regarding religious accommodations in curriculum. Sligo Law Group can assist your district or agency in responding effectively and lawfully by:

  • Reviewing existing curriculum opt-out and accommodation policies;

  • Drafting or revising opt-out request procedures, including legally compliant forms, notices, and guidance for school staff;

  • Providing training to administrators and educators on how to identify and respond to religious accommodation requests;

  • Conducting legal risk assessments for curricular materials that may raise religious objections, especially those related to diversity, health, sex education, or cultural literacy;

  • Advising on communications with parents and the public, ensuring that legal obligations are met without undermining inclusion goals;

  • Assisting in dispute resolution and administrative review of parent complaints involving curriculum or accommodation denials, including preparing internal responses or public statements; and

  • Preparing legal memoranda or guidance documents for school boards, superintendents, or general counsel on how to interpret and apply the decision in a way that mitigates litigation risk.

Note: The above summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique; for advice on your particular circumstances, please contact us at contact@sligolawgroup.com.