In a landmark 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided in favour of religious parents in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case challenging the inclusion of LGBTQ+ themed books in a Maryland public school curriculum.
The decision, split along ideological lines, supports the plaintiffs’ claim that their First Amendment rights were infringed upon by being unable to exempt their children from reading materials such as Prince & Knight and Uncle Bobby’s Wedding.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito stated, “The storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender,” rejecting the school board’s framing of the books as promoting “mutual respect” or merely presenting “objectionable ideas.”
Alito added that the key issue is whether the curriculum “substantially interfere[s] with the religious development” of children or poses “a very real threat of undermining” the beliefs that parents aim to instil.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, warned that the ruling introduces a new constitutional right allowing avoidance of themes that subtly challenge religious values. “Exposing students to the ‘message’ that LGBTQ people exist… is enough to trigger the most demanding form of judicial scrutiny,” she argued.
The plaintiffs, comprising Christian and Muslim parents, objected to the removal of an opt-out policy previously in place in the Montgomery County school district. School officials claimed the policy had become “unworkable.” While some families advocated for the return of opt-outs, others rallied to support inclusive education.
Among them was Christina Celenza, a local parent. “We have a two-mum household, so… of course, my kid in kindergarten or pre-K is going to probably talk about his family and his two mums,” she said during a 2023 protest.
Despite previous lower court rulings denying an injunction, the Supreme Court granted one, empowering the plaintiffs’ request that schools notify them of any content involving LGBTQ+ people so their children could avoid exposure.
Critics fear the ruling opens the door to broader parental objections, potentially including topics like environmental education, critical thinking, and health programs. Advocacy groups for free speech and LGBTQ+ rights expressed strong concern over the precedent.
“This ruling is a deeply disappointing blow to the right to read under the First Amendment,” said Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for PEN America. “It betrays public schools’ duty to prepare students for life in a diverse society.”
Equality California’s Executive Director Tony Hoang added, “LGBTQ+ themed books are already among the most banned and challenged… Today’s decision will make it even harder for these books to reach students.”
Mary L. Bonauto of GLAD Law emphasised the continuing responsibility of schools: “LGBTQ+ people and families exist… books that include LGBTQ+ people should not be treated differently than those without.”
Bonauto concluded that despite the decision, communities should remain engaged: “Parents, students, educators, and neighbours can encourage opportunities for learning about diverse people and families by staying involved.”
