Written By: Jacob Riederer
While it’s expected that Supreme Court justices will disagree on how to interpret laws, one might assume they could at least agree on how to interpret children’s books. However, this wasn’t the case during oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which at times seemed like a book club of sorts. Children’s books were closely scrutinized as the Court considered whether a Maryland school district crossed a constitutional line by requiring elementary students to take part in classroom readings that feature LGBTQ+ characters and explore related themes. In the process, the justices weighed how far public schools must go to accommodate religious beliefs.
How the Lawsuit Began
The lawsuit began in 2022 when Montgomery County Public Schools added LGBTQ+-inclusive books to its elementary curriculum. Among them was Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, which is story about a young girl who feels upset when she learns her favorite uncle, with whom she spends lots of time, is getting married. But, she gradually comes to accept and celebrate his relationship with another man. The books were introduced to promote inclusion and respect for different types of people and families.
At first, parents could opt their children out of these lessons. Those students were placed in separate rooms, given alternative assignments, or missed class altogether. In 2023, citing logistical problems and concerns about stigmatizing LGBTQ+ students, the school board ended the opt-out policy. In response, parents from Muslim, Catholic, and Protestant backgrounds sued. They argued that requiring their children to stay in class during lessons involving LGBTQ+ themes violated their rights under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits the government from placing a substantial burden on religious practice. Lower courts rejected the claims, finding that exposure to ideas, including those conflicting with a family’s religious beliefs, does not amount to coercion. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Legal Arguments: Moral Coercion or Educational Exposure
Here, the parents argue that directly teaching and discussing LGBTQ+ characters and stories constitutes moral coercion. However, they emphasize that their objection is not to the mere inclusion of these books in the school library but their use in formal instruction and class discussions. They argue that teaching books portraying same-sex relationships and gender diversity as positive conflicts with their religious doctrines, which define marriage as between a man and a woman and maintain traditional views on gender. This is concerning, especially for young children who can’t distinguish between being told about something and being taught to accept it. They cite Wisconsin v. Yoder to argue that schools must accommodate religious objections unless they have a compelling reason not to. In their view, removing the opt-out option disregards that obligation and places an undue burden on their religious exercise.
Contrastingly, the school board argues that the curriculum is constitutional. Under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Employment Division v. Smith, a policy that is both neutral and generally applicable does not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if it has incidental effects on religious practices. Here, the board maintains that the curriculum is neutral, applies equally to all students, and was not designed to target or single out any religious beliefs, meaning it wouldn’t be unconstitutional. The board also argues that students are merely being exposed to diverse
perspectives, not compelled to accept or endorse them. In addition, administrators cite practical challenges, noting that the previous opt-out policy led to widespread absenteeism and created logistical difficulties in supervising students who were withdrawn from class.
How The Justices Responded
During oral arguments, the justices appeared sharply divided, not just on the constitutional questions, but on how to interpret the books themselves. For example, Justice Samuel Alito said Uncle Bobby’s Wedding “has a clear message” that endorses same-sex marriage. He also suggested that forcing religious children to hear that message may violate constitutional protections. Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with this interpretation, noting that the young protagonist is upset because she thinks she won’t be able to spend as much time with her uncle after he gets married. She maintains that the character accepts the relationship after realizing she won’t lose time with her uncle, not due to bias against same-sex marriage.
Other conservative justices showed concern for the parents’ claims. Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether eliminating opt-outs reflected hostility toward religion, noting that the district still allows parents to excuse their children from instruction on topics like human growth and development. Chief Justice John Roberts focused on age, asking whether very young children could reasonably distinguish between being taught about something and being told to accept it. Liberal justices, meanwhile, expressed concern about the broader implications of granting religious opt-outs. Justice Elena Kagan warned that such a precedent could lead to widespread curriculum challenges, citing potential objections to lessons on Halloween or evolution. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that being exposed to ideas is not the same as being coerced to adopt them.
Conclusion: Implications for Schools and Families
While books were a central focus during oral arguments, it’s clear that the Court’s decision will reach far beyond which stories are read in class. It could reshape how schools balance parental rights and redefine when exposure to ideas becomes a constitutional issue. However, the justices rule, their decision is likely to have lasting implications for educators, families, and students nationwide.
Sources:
Amicus Curiae Brief of the Alliance for Academic Freedom et al., Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297 (U.S. filed Oct. 4, 2024), https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/327552/20241004112014094_2024%2010%2004%2024-297%20AAF%20et%20al%20Mahmoud%20Amicus%20Brief%20FILED.pdf.
Amy Howe, Will the Supreme Court Side With Parents on LGBTQ Books in Schools?, SCOTUSBLOG (Apr. 24, 2025), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-likely-to-rule-for-parental-opt-out-on-lgbtq-books-in-schools/.
Brief in Opposition, Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297 (U.S. filed Dec. 18, 2024), https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf.
Laura Meckler, Supreme Court Seems Divided Over LGBTQ-Inclusive Books in Schools, WASH. POST (Apr. 21, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/04/21/supreme-court-montgomery-county-lgbtq-book-opt-out/.
Naaz Modan, Justices Appear Split in Key Curriculum Opt-Out Case, K–12 DIVE (Apr. 24, 2025), https://www.k12dive.com/news/supreme-court-appears-split-in-key-curriculum-opt-out-case/746063/.
Nina Totenberg, Supreme Court Hears Case on LGBTQ+ Books in Public Schools, NPR (Apr. 22, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372646/supreme-court-lgbtq-books-public-schools. Transcript of Oral Argument, Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297 (U.S. argued Apr. 22, 2025), https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/24-297_p8k0.pdf. When Storybooks Become a Supreme Court Case, The Daily, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 25, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/podcasts/the-daily/storybooks-supreme-court-case.html?showTranscript=1.