No doubt that leftists will scream that the Court has backed the “Christian Nationalists” or make some similar complaint, so it’s hilarious that the case that opens the door for parents to keep their kids from being subjected to alphabet ideology in the schools will forever be known as Mahmoud v Taylor.
Mahmoud. That is funny.
The 6-3 decision is from Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. https://t.co/PaXXSgFkjg
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2025
At the root of the case is Maryland’s assertion that allowing parents to opt their children out of being indoctrinated with all sorts of alphabet ideology propaganda was too large a burden for the school to bear if they wanted to educate kids. Allowing kids not to be subjected to books that promote gay marriage, gender bending, and all sorts of Queer culture ideology would be disruptive, and kids have to learn how to be accepting, in any case.
Pish posh, said a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court. That’s bunk. Chastising kids for being bigots if they believe in traditional marriage obviously undermines parents teaching kids their religious values. Duh.
The Supreme Court has sided with a group of parents demanding that their public schools be required to provide notices to opt their children out of certain storybook readings that conflict with their religious beliefs.
Friday’s 6-3 ruling, split along ideological lines, found that Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools violated parents’ First Amendment rights to religious exercise by not giving them advanced notice or an opportunity to opt their children out of certain lessons. The school board had initially allowed parents to opt out of lessons, but the board’s policy reversal in the 2023-2024 school year sparked a legal challenge.
The school district said it had withdrawn its opt-out notice policy because it became unmanageable and resulted in reports of high absenteeism to the school board.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and the court’s three liberal justices dissented.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor is a major win for religious liberty and parental rights.
The Court rightfully held that schools can’t shut parents out or disregard their religious obligations to their children.
A great day for parents and education champions! pic.twitter.com/eZkT8Qu7kY
— Secretary Linda McMahon (@EDSecMcMahon) June 27, 2025
It is black letter law that the state cannot impose an undue burden on parents teaching their kids religious values, and the plaintiffs in the case–who adhere to various Christian and Muslim beliefs–made the obvious point that teaching that people with penises can be girls and that kids can have three daddies who like to dress up in bondage gear makes it pretty darn hard to teach kids their values.
The petitioners here are a group of individual parents and an unincorporated association of other interested parties. The individual parents come from diverse religious backgrounds and hold sincere views on sexuality and gender which they wish to pass on to their children. Faced with the Board’s decision to rescind opt outs, petitioners filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Among other things, they asserted that the Board’s no-opt-outpolicy infringed on parents’ right to the free exercise of their religion.See Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist., 597 U. S. 507, 524. They relied heavily on Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, in which the Court recognized that parents have a right “to direct the religious upbringing oftheir children” and that this right can be infringed by laws that pose“a very real threat of undermining” the religious beliefs and practicesthat parents wish to instill in their children. Id., at 218, 233. Petitioners sought a preliminary and permanent injunction “prohibiting the School Board from forcing [their] children and other students—over the objection of their parents—to read, listen to, or discuss” the storybooks. App. to Pet. for Cert. 206a. The District Court denied relief,and a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
What is striking is that two levels of appellate courts didn’t see the obvious, which tells you a lot about how absurdly out of whack our courts have become. If pushing alphabet ideology on children doesn’t hinder religious parents from passing on their values, what would?
The 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 petitioners’ children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable. The books are unmistakably normative. They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs asthings to be rejected.Take, for example, the message sent by the books concerning same-sex marriage. Many Americans “advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644, 679. That group includes each of the parents in this case. The storybooks, however, are designed to present the opposite viewpoint to young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher’s instruction. The storybooks present same-sex weddings as occasions for great celebration and suggest that the only rubric for determining whether a marriage is acceptable is whether the individuals concerned “love each other.”The storybooks similarly convey a normative message on the subjects of sex and gender. Many Americans, like the parents in this case, believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly. The storybooks, however, suggest that itis hurtful, and perhaps even hateful, to hold the view that gender is inextricably bound with biological sex.
The Alliance Defending Freedom crowed about the win, as well they should:
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is a monumental victory for parents and their fundamental right to make decisions consistent with their religious beliefs about the upbringing and education of their children. Government officials can’t force parents to give up that right or violate their religious beliefs in exchange for a public education. In line with American history, tradition, and judicial precedent, the court affirmed that school officials cannot act like their job is to replace parents and their beliefs. Our Constitution forbids schools from indoctrinating children with uniform views on sexuality and gender—hotly debated topics—in conflict with their families’ religious beliefs. We applaud the court’s protection of parents’ right to choose what’s best for their children’s education. We also congratulate our friends at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty for their hard-fought win in this important case.”
In its opinion granting the parents their requested injunction, the court made clear that “the 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.”
This case was merely about granting a temporary injunction so parents can still opt their kids out of the indoctrination until a decision on the merits is decided in court, but the granting of the temporary injunction is based on the Court’s finding that the parents will likely win on the merits of the case. By citing all the precedents and the reasoning behind granting the injunction, the Court is basically telling the lower courts how the case should be decided.
The Court does not accept the Board’s characterizations of the“LGBTQ+-inclusive” instruction as mere “exposure to objectionable ideas” or as lessons in “mutual respect.” The storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender. And the Board has specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. That goes beyond mere “exposure.” Regardless, the question in cases of this kindis whether the educational requirement or curriculum at issue would“substantially interfer[e] with the religious development” of the child, or pose “a very real threat of undermining” the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child.
All of this is so blindingly obvious that only an academic “expert” should be expected to deny it. Yet here we are. It took a Supreme Court decision to lay it all out, and still, three of the Justices wanted to force Catholic and Muslim kids to be taught that people with penises are women.
They believe that because they believe that they can change the law based on their whims. What was true yesterday is void today.
Three years ago, Justice Kagan said that “it just can’t be right” that district court judges could issue nation wide injunctions against a President.
Now that Trump is in office, she just voted to keep nation wide injunctions in place.
TOTAL POLITICAL HACK. pic.twitter.com/N22H5zZF4D
— Madison Cawthorn (@CawthornforNC) June 27, 2025
We live in a crazy world.
