A century ago, the Supreme Court distributed one of the most important cases about education. On June 1, 1925, the court rejected an Oregon statute requiring all students to attend public schools - a legal critic argued that anti-Catholic prejudice was still widespread when it was still common in parts of the United States.

Most of the views in Pierce's Society of Jesus and Mary's Holy Names include a now-famous motto about the right of parents to shape their children's growth. According to the court, “The child is not just a creature of the state; those who raise him and guide his destiny have the right, plus high responsibility, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

Soon, it is expected that the Supreme Court will issue another decision on parental beliefs and education: Mahmoud v. Taylor. The plaintiffs are parents who want to justify the children from public school courses involving LGBTQ+ character storybooks - their assertions contradict their religious beliefs.

As someone with educational law, I think this is perhaps the most important case in court regarding parental rights since Pierce. Mahmoud not only raises questions about religious freedom, but also raises the ability of educators to determine curriculum and public education in diverse societies.

Picture book debate

The 2022-23 school year in Montgomery County, the largest school district in Maryland, was controversial when officials approved various story books with LGBTQ+ that contained the topics of LGBTQ+ and included them in English art courses for preschool and elementary school students.

Some parents challenged the material, including "Proud Puppy!", a picture book that was later deleted. Originally approved for preschoolers and Pre-K, this story depicts a family whose puppy is lost in LGBTQ+ Pride Parade, writing a page specifically for each letter of the letter. At the end of the book, a long "Search and Find" list for kids to go back and find photos of the parade, including "(Trailer) Queen" and "King", "Leather" and "Lips".

Other materials for other children include stories about same-sex marriage, trans children and non-binary bathroom logos.

Parents who oppose the use of these materials on religious grounds attempt to forgive from the lessons they attend. Parents basically argue that their children are required to participate in forcing or forcing them to compete with their family’s religious beliefs.

Initially, officials agreed to allow selection of primary school students whose parents opposed the material. But, a day later, they changed their minds. From then on, school officials will focus on absenteeism, the feasibility of accommodating exit requests, and avoiding stigmatizing the desires of LGBTQ+ students or families as reasons for their policies.

A group of Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Catholic families challenged the board’s refusal to use controversial material to justify children from the lessons.

However, the federal trial court rejected the claim that parents did not opt ​​out and violated their due process rights.

Parents appealed, and the Fourth Circuit confirmed the support of the school board 2-1. The court added that officials did not violate the First Amendment rights of parents to exercise their faith freely. “There is no evidence that the decision of the board to not allow withdrawal forces parents or their children to change their religion or behavior at school or elsewhere,” the panel concluded.

The opposing judge retorted harshly. He wrote that officials forced them to “make a choice”, violating parents’ freedom of exercise, “either in their beliefs or receive free public education from his children.” He also noted that the board’s opt-out policy is not neutral to religion because children can be forgiven from sex classes under Maryland regulations.

In January 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to listen to parents' appeals, resolving whether schools have the right to free movement.

Court Records

In a profile to the Supreme Court and the oral debate, parents cited Wisconsin v. Yoder v. Supreme Court ruling, which began in 1972. The court ruled that Amish parents do not have to send their children to school after eighth grade, which families believe would violate their religious beliefs. Amish communities landed in baptism Christians fled Europe's persecution and emphasized life, avoiding many modern technology life.

In Yoder, the Justice agreed to parents' children that their children received all the education they needed in the family community. Most people write that under the First Amendment, parents have the right to “guise their children’s religious future and their children’s education.”

During the oral debate in Mahmoud in April 2025, some justices briefly discussed another precedent: the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1943 West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, was determined at the peak of the United States’ participation in World War II. Here, three are the refusal of the parents of Jehovah’s Witnesses to allow their children to attend the flag and assurance of loyalty because they regard it as a form of idolatry, which violates their religious beliefs. Others objected to salute “too Hitler.”

The court held that educators could not force students to participate because activities that forced children or anyone to be inconsistent with their beliefs ran counter to their First Amendment to exercise their free first amendment to freedom of religion and speech.

Together, these cases highlight how the courts give parents significant leeway to avoid educational activities that are inconsistent with their children’s religious beliefs.

Questions in court

During the oral debate, most justices seemed to support the parents’ demands, asking children to draw on books about LGBTQ+ roles for excuses.

The board of directors attorneys believe that students do not have to agree to the information on the books, but only take the course. He said that exposure to an idea “does not burden unpaid sports.

However, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the 5-year-old whether the difference was realistic. He asked: "Do you want to say you don't have to follow the teacher's instructions, you don't have to agree with the teacher? I mean, this may be more dangerous than some other things."

Other conservative judges also seem to be skeptical of the lessons that these lessons are merely exposed to young children, rather than instilling the notion of moral lessons. These story books don't simply explain that some people think of something, while others don't. They informed students that “this is the correct view of the world.” Similarly, Judge Neil Gorsuch noted that telling students “some people think that X, X is wrong, hurt and negative” is “more than just exposure.”

"What's the big deal to get them to quit?" asked Justice Samuel Alito.

Instead, Judge Elena Kagan acknowledged that parents’ concerns were “serious” but wanted to know how to limit the exit policy. Does the parent’s argument indicate that at any time “a religious person in the classroom is in relation to anything that conflicts with her religious beliefs or parents – can the parent choose to quit?”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor imposed a lawyer on "just contact with things you object" on the plaintiff's lawyer, whether it is really coercion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned why it is mandatory to teach “things that parents disagree with” in public schools, even if the withdrawal is not allowed, because homeschooling and private schools are legal.

Mahmoud raises challenging questions about course content, parental control and free exercise of religion – issues that the courts are expected to address. A ruling is expected to be made in June or early July 2025.