On June 27, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision regarding whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality, against their parents’ religious convictions, and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the board introduced a variety of “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts into the curriculum. Those texts included five “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks approved for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, which have story lines focused on sexuality and gender. When parents sought to have their children excused from instruction involving those books, the board initially compromised with the parents by notifying them when the “LGBTQ+- inclusive” storybooks would be taught, and permitting their children to be excused from the instruction. However, less than a year after the board introduced the books, it rescinded the parental opt-out policy.
Petitioners, which included a group of individual parents, filed a lawsuit in the District Court and asserted, among other things, that the board’s no-opt-out policy infringed on parents’ right to the free exercise of their religion. Petitioners sought a preliminary and permanent injunction “prohibiting the … [b]oard from forcing [their] children and other students—over the objection of their parents—to read, listen to, or discuss” the storybooks. The District Court denied relief, holding that petitioners were unlikely to succeed because they could not show “that the no-opt out policy burdens their religious exercise.” On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding, again, that there was no free-exercise burden because no one was forced “to change their religious beliefs or conduct” or “what they teach their own children.”
The Court agreed to review this issue and concluded that the petitioners challenging the board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with the board’s decision to prohibit parental opt-out, are entitled to a preliminary injunction because: petitioners are likely to succeed on their claim that the board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise; without an injunction, petitioners will continue to suffer an unconstitutional burden on their religious exercise, and such a burden unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury; and an injunction would be both equitable and in the public interest.
The Court also stated that, “until all appellate review in this case is completed, the [b]oard should be ordered to notify the petitioners in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.” In other words, the board was directed to comply with the compromise it had initially agreed to with petitioners. It is important to note that the Court’s decision in this matter was in the context of a request for a preliminary injunction, i.e., the decision is a projection of what the final outcome of the matter will be, but is not based on the full merits of the case. For additional information about this matter, please contact the NJSBA Legal Department at (609) 278-5279, or your board attorney for specific legal advice.
