By Kelly Himes Brolly, author of “Laws, Rules, and Rights: A Guide to Protecting Children in Public Schools,” Double Umbrella Publications, LLC (2023)

This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a decisive blow to LGBTQ+-inclusive content in public schools. Mahmoud v. Taylor, (June 27, 2025).¹ Now, public schools nationwide must comply with the Supreme Court’s decision.

First, public schools are required to give advanced notice to parents when books and instructional materials with LGBTQ+-inclusive content “is to be used in any way.” Second, public schools “must allow parents to have their children excused from that instruction.” (p. 41). To do otherwise, violates parents’ rights to free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Unfortunately, public schools are left to monitor themselves. One wonders if this is happening.

However, parents who are aware of the Court’s ruling may request advanced notice of the content and opt-out.

They can also share this information with teachers, administrators, school boards, parents-teacher organizations, legislators, and religious groups to get the word out. 

Background

The Maryland case involved several storybooks with sex- and gender-identity themes that were incorporated into the English Language Arts curriculum for Kindergarten through 5th grade. It also included instructions for teacher-led discussions. When hundreds of parents tried to opt-out, the Maryland school board² refused. Parents were not given advanced notice of the lessons and could not opt-out, even after over 1,000 parents signed a petition requesting opt-outs.

Several families sued the school for violating their parental rights and their right to free exercise of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the parents, and as a result, the Court’s decision affects all parents with children in public schools, including charter schools³, nationwide.

The Storybooks Attempt to Normalize LGBQT+Inclusive Content

The Court stated that the storybooks and the teacher-led discussion responses were “unmistakably normative” and not permitted by many religious belief systems. (p. 22). They teach children that what was traditionally considered abnormal is now normal. In other words, the storybooks tried to establish “norms” or “standards” for behaviors, morals, ethics, or viewpoints about sex- and gender- identity, which were contrary to the parents’ religious beliefs and in violation of the parents’ constitutional rights.

The Storybooks are Coercive

The Court also recognized the “great authority and coercive power” of public schools, noting that students often emulate teachers as role models and are easily influenced by peer pressure. (p. 26.) The Court found that these messages, which are sometimes even subtle, undermine the moral message many American parents want to pass on to their children in violation of the parents’ constitutional rights. Additionally, the Court stated that parents cannot be forced to give up their right to free exercise of religion as a condition to sending their children to public school, which is a public benefit. (pp. 32-33).

Public Schools Must Provide Advanced Notice and Opt-Outs Even if They are Cumbersome

The Court had no sympathy for the school’s claims that opt-outs were administratively difficult or cumbersome because it regularly accommodated opt-outs for special education, emerging language programs, and sex education.

To the extent that it is difficult for the school to remove this instruction that is embedded or woven into the curriculum, the Court called the school’s problem “self-inflicted” and a product of its own making. (p. 39). Parents’ constitutional rights must prevail. In practical terms, this means that public schools cannot “embed” or “weave” LGBTQ+-inclusive content throughout the curriculum without providing advanced notice to parents and an opportunity to opt-out. (p. 41 and concurrence p. 12).

History Repeats Itself: The Ideological Conformity-Driven Education Rationales of 1925

Justice Thomas wrote about the case’s similarities with the 1925 case, Pierce v. Society of Sisters⁴. In 1925, America was considered a Protestant nation, and anti-Catholic sentiment was popular, prestigious, and the “smart-set view of the day.” (concurrence p. 8). Education reformers and many elites believed public schools could produce ideological conformity and free the immigrant children from their “outdated and useless religious beliefs.” (concurrence p. 8).

Oregon hoped to “Protestantize” and “Americanize” the immigrant children by passing a law that required all students to attend public schools from first through eighth grade, effectively prohibiting Catholic schools. (concurrence p. 7). The Court struck down the Oregon law as unconstitutional. In other words, history is repeating itself, and once again, ideological conformity-driven education rationales are unconstitutional.

“Ingenious Defiance of the Constitution”

Additionally, Justice Thomas stated that public schools cannot insulate themselves from liability under the First Amendment by “weaving religiously offensive material throughout its curriculum and thereby significantly increasing the difficulty and complexity of remedying parents’ constitutional injuries.” (p. 13). In closing, Justice Thomas instructed the lower courts to “carefully police such ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” (p. 13).

The Implications of the Court’s Decision

The Court’s holding is powerful, and the implications are significant and timely as students return to public schools.

First, the Court’s decision requires public schools to review curriculum and instructional materials for LGBTQ+-inclusive content that “is used in any way,” and may be embedded or woven into public school instruction. The public schools may confine the content to specific units or include it in the sex education class. Yet, they must give parents “advanced notice” and an opportunity to opt-out.

Logically, the public schools’ review should include the curriculum, supplemental materials, as well as instruction and content from third-party vendors, online resources, book fairs, and even teacher-student discussions, which may require continuing education.

Unfortunately, they are left to monitor themselves.

However, parents can call and email their public schools to confirm that they are fulfilling their constitutionally-required duties. Also, parents, or anyone with an interest in this topic, can submit an open records request for this information under the state’s open records law, which is sometimes referred to as a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Sunshine Act. At a minimum, they can share this information with teachers, administrators, school boards, parents-teacher organizations, legislators, and religious groups.

What Grades Does the Ruling Apply to?

Second, we know that this decision applies to Kindergarten through 5th grade, and may apply through high school. On the one hand, the Court stated that the age of the student was highly relevant to the effects of the instruction. (p. 26, fn. 8). On the other hand, the Court relied heavily on Wisconsin v. Yoder, a prior U.S. Supreme Court decision involving students in 9th through 10th grade⁵. The Court also restated the importance of “protecting freedom of conscience from subtle pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools.” (p. 26). The term “secondary schools” generally includes 6th through 12th grade students. Unless and until another case involving the higher grades is brought, we don’t have a firm answer.

Nonetheless, parents can call and email their public schools to confirm that they have received advanced notice of all LGBTQ+-inclusive content that “is to be used in any way,” and in advance, submit an opt-out.

Parent Opt-Outs

Third, parent opt-outs are about to become even more common-place in public schools. Opt-out forms are usually available on school district websites, on parental rights websites, and through an online search. A free printable opt-out is available at the Double Umbrella Publications website under “Resources.”

Fourth, and hopefully a long-term effect, is that public schools will eventually get tired of the opt-outs and return to teaching the basics!

For a more in-depth review of Mahmoud v. Taylor, and parental rights in education nationwide, go to Double Umbrella Publications

Get downloadable opt-out form for Public Schools HERE

To meet like-minded individuals who are taking action click HERE

References

¹Mahmoud et al., v. Taylor, et al., 606 U.S. ___ (2025). To date, the official case citation is incomplete, and is written with the blank space for the “to be determined” page number. All citations in this article are to the temporary page numbers in the Court’s opinion. Please note that the Court’s Opinion has four parts: the slip opinion (syllabus), the majority opinion, the concurring opinion, and the dissenting opinion. Each part begins with a new page 1. Be sure you are in the correct section. For readability, most internal quotations and citations have been omitted. The term “Id.,” which is short for the Latin idem, meaning “the same,” is not used in this article. Instead, the page reference above is repeated, as needed.

² In Maryland, as in other states, the local school district is governed by a school board, which is a policy-making body. For readability, I refer to the school board, school district, and other school officials in the case as the “school.”

³ Charter schools are also public schools and are impacted by the Court’s decision. However, the case does not directly impact private schools because the First Amendment protects against government infringement of constitutional rights. Private schools are not government-run schools. See Brolly, Kelly, “Laws, Rules, and Rights: A Guide to Protecting Children in Public Schools,” Double Umbrella Publications, LLC (2023).

⁴ Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

⁵  Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S 205 (1972), Wisconsin’s mandatory attendance law required students to attend school through age 16, which is generally 10th grade. The Amish wanted to send their children to attend school through age 14, which is generally 8th grade. Thus, the issue before the Court involved the state’s 9th and 10th grade mandatory attendance law.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only. No information contained in this article should be construed as legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. Readers are encouraged to contact an attorney in their jurisdiction with any questions.

Kelly Himes Brolly is an attorney, author, consultant, and the Managing Member of Double Umbrella Publications, LLC, d/b/a Double Umbrella Consulting. For more information on constitutional rights in layman’s terms, see Part II, Federal and State Constitutional Rights, in Kelly’s book, “Laws, Rules, and Rights: A Guide to Protecting Children in Public Schools,” Double Umbrella Publications, LLC (2023). To order Kelly’s book on Amazon, go here. To hear Kelly’s podcast on ThinQ Media titled “The Informed Parent,” go here. To learn more about parental rights and public schools in all 50 states, go here or to www.doubleumbrellapublications.com.