Mahmoud v. Taylor

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Mahmoud v. Taylor
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: April 22, 2025
Decided: June 27, 2025
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Clarence Thomas
Concurring
Clarence Thomas
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Mahmoud v. Taylor is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 22, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term.

In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding that the Montgomery County Board of Education's introduction of LGBTQ+ related storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion. The court also held that parents challenging the Board's introduction of LGBTQ+ related storybooks and their decision to withhold parental opt outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned religious exercise rights and elementary school education on gender and sexuality. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Do 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?"[2]
  • The outcome: In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: Tamer Mahmoud, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Eric S. Baxter (The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty)
    • Respondent: Thomas W. Taylor, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Alan Evan Schoenfeld (Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP)

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez

    “ In October 2022, Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland approved LGBTQ-inclusive books for its English Language Arts curriculum. These “Storybooks” featured characters and themes related to sexual orientation and gender identity, including books like “Pride Puppy!” for pre-K students and “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope” for K-5 students. Initially, the school board allowed parents to receive notice and opt their children out of lessons involving these books, in line with the district’s guidelines for religious accommodations. However, in March 2023, the Board abruptly reversed this policy, eliminating all notice and opt-out options without explanation, though they later cited concerns about high student absenteeism, classroom disruption, administrative burden, and potential stigmatization of individuals represented in the books.

    Several parents of different religious backgrounds (Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox) sued the Board, arguing that the denial of notice and opt-out options violated their religious freedom and parental rights. The parents did not seek to ban the books or challenge their adoption into the curriculum; rather, they sought to maintain control over how and when their children would be exposed to content they believed conflicted with their religious duties to train their children according to their faiths on matters of gender, marriage, and sexuality.

    The district court denied the parents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the parents failed to demonstrate a cognizable burden to their religious freedom, and the parents filed an interlocutory appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial.[4]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Do 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?[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding that the Montgomery County Board of Education's introduction of LGBTQ+ related storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion. The court also held that parents challenging the Board's introduction of LGBTQ+ related storybooks, and their decision to withhold parental opt outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:[1]

    “

    The Board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion. The parents have therefore shown that they are likely to succeed in their free exercise claims. They have likewise shown entitlement to a preliminary injunction pending the completion of this lawsuit. In the absence of an injunction, the parents will continue to be put to a choice: either risk their child’s exposure to burdensome instruction, or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services. As we have explained, that choice unconstitutionally burdens the parents’ religious exercise, and ‘‘[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’’ Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. 14, 19 (2020) (per curiam) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion)). Furthermore, in light of the strong showing made by the parents here, and the lack of a compelling interest supporting the Board’s policies, an injunction is both equitable and in the public interest. The petitioners should receive preliminary relief while this lawsuit proceeds. See Winter, 555 U. S., at 20. Specifically, until all appellate review in this case is completed, the Board should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow[4]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    The Board of Education of Montgomery County (Board) adopted a series of controversial ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks for use in its prekindergarten through fifth-grade English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum. Hundreds of parents raised religious objections and sought to use the Board’s then-existing opt-out policy to exclude their children from lessons involving these books. The Board responded by removing the opt-out option, and even refused to provide parents with notice of when schools would use the materials. Parents sued, arguing that the Board’s new no-opt-out policy violates their First Amendment rights. The Court correctly holds that the policy contravenes the parents’ free exercise right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, see ante, at 17, and I join its opinion in full. I write separately to highlight additional reasons why the Board’s policy cannot survive constitutional scrutiny, as well as to emphasize an important implication of this decision for schools across the country.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “

    Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators. That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now.

    The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent. [4]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Supreme Court of the United States, "Mahmoud v. Taylor," June 27, 2025
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-297 MAHMOUD V. TAYLOR QP", January 17, 2025
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-297," accessed February 6, 2025
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued April 22, 2025
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued April 22, 2025
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Mahmoud_v._Taylor&oldid=10423112"