Opinion Summary: Mahmoud v. Taylor | Date Decided: 6/27/25 | Case No. 24-297
About this episode
Opinion Summary: Mahmoud v. Taylor | Date Decided: 6/27/25 | Case No. 24-297
Link to Docket: Here.
Background:
Respondent Montgomery County Board of Education requires elementary school teachers to read their students storybooks celebrating gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance. The storybooks were chosen to disrupt "cisnormativity" and "either/or thinking" among students. The Board's own principals objected that the curriculum was "not appropriate for the intended age group," presented gender ideology as "fact," "sham[ed]" students with contrary opinions, and was "dismissive of religious beliefs." The Board initially allowed parents to opt their kids out- but then reversed course, saying that no opt-outs would be permitted and that parents would not even be notified when the storybooks were read.
Petitioners filed suit, not challenging the curriculum, but arguing that compelling their elementary-age children to participate in instruction contrary to their parents' religious convictions violated the Free Exercise Clause. Construing Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Fourth Circuit found no free-exercise burden because no one was forced "to change their religious beliefs or conduct."
Question Presented:
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 with-out notice or opportunity to opt out.
Holding: Parents challenging the Board's introduction of the "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction.
Result: Reversed and remanded.
Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Oral Advocates:
- For Petitioners: Eric S. Baxter, Washington, D.C.; and Sarah M. Harris, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
- For Respondents: Alan E. Schoenfeld, New York, N.Y.
Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.
Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.
Get every episode summarized
Each time The High Court Report publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Hosts & guests
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Monsanto v. Durnell | Court Axes Roundup Cancer Suits
The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Doe | No Judge. No TPS. No Way Back.
The High Court Report
New Opinions: June 30th | 3 Blockbusters End the Term
The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado | The Inch That Changed Immigration Law
The High Court Report