The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision last week in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a landmark gender ideology indoctrination case, addressed parental rights and religious liberty in public education. The case challenged a Maryland school board policy requiring elementary students to participate in gender ideology lessons without parental notice or opt-out options, which placed a burden on families’ deeply held religious beliefs. This ruling is an unequivocal affirmation that public schools must respect families’ religious convictions and cannot condition access to education on surrender of those beliefs.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioners in October 2024. After the Supreme Court granted the case hearing, the ERLC filed an additional brief outlining why the Court should rule for the parents. The brief highlights:

• The fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children;
• The importance of religious liberty in ensuring that parents are not forced to choose between their faith and their children’s schooling;
• The role of the Free Exercise Clause in protecting parents from government-compelled ideological indoctrination; 
• And the necessity of ensuring that public schools respect the diverse religious beliefs of families in their communities.

Why was this gender ideology indoctrination case before the court?

The background: In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland introduced a new policy requiring the use of storybooks and discussion guides that promote radical gender ideology in elementary school classrooms, including for children as young as 3. These books encourage students to discuss what it means to be “nonbinary” and ask 4-year-olds to search for “underwear,” “intersex flags” and “drag queens” in a “Where’s Waldo?”-style book. 

The issue: Initially, the school board indicated that parents could opt their children out of the curriculum based on religious or moral objections. However, the board later reversed its position, deciding that parents would no longer be notified when these materials were used in class and would not be allowed to opt their children out because it was too burdensome for the schools.

The legal challenge: A multifaith coalition of more than 300 religious parents, including Muslims, Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians, challenged this policy in court with the help of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The parents argued that the policy violated their First Amendment rights by mandating that public school teachers use materials promoting radical sexuality ideology meant to indoctrinate their children, in direct contradiction of the parents’ deeply held religious beliefs.

The lower court ruling: Lower courts sided with Montgomery County, ruling that parents do not have the right to opt their children out of public school curricula they find objectionable and burdensome to their religious exercise.

What did the court decide in this gender ideology indoctrination case?

The Supreme Court ruled that the classroom use of “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks without an opt-out option burdened the religious freedom of the parents, who “are entitled to a preliminary injunction,” a means to prevent the policy’s enforcement against families with religious objections. ⁽¹⁾ The Court sent the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings but found “that the parents are likely to succeed in their challenge to the Board’s policies.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito affirmed that “for many Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others, the religious education of children is not merely a preferred practice but rather a religious obligation.” ⁽¹⁸⁾ This obligation is reflected by the parental rights protected by decades of Supreme Court precedent, a right that “extends to the choices that parents wish to make for their children outside the home.” ⁽¹⁸⁾ By refusing to allow religious parents to opt out of instruction that promotes radical sexual and gender ideology, the school board significantly infringed on those parents’ right to instruct their children according to their religious precepts.

While the dissent portrays the use of “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks as mere exposure to different worldviews, Justice Alito’s analysis of the books in question demonstrates that they are far from neutral, but rather are “unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.” ⁽²²⁾ By promoting the morality of same-sex unions and transgender ideology, the message of these books is clearly to undermine the traditional sexual ethic of countless religious traditions.

After demonstrating that the no-opt-out policy substantially burdens the families’ free exercise of religion, the Court turns to whether the policy can survive “strict scrutiny,” that is, is the policy pursuing a compelling government interest implemented by the least restrictive means?

Justice Alito writes: “We do not doubt that, as a general matter, schools have a ‘compelling interest in having an undisrupted school session conducive to the students’ learning.’ But the Board’s conduct undermines its assertion that its no-opt-out policy is necessary to serve that interest. As we have noted, the Board continues to permit opt outs in a variety of other circumstances. … And the Board goes to great lengths to provide independent, parallel programming for many other students. … This robust ‘system of exceptions’ undermines the Board’s contention that the provision of opt outs to religious parents would be infeasible or unworkable.” ^(37-38)

The Court concludes by establishing that, “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 them to have their children excused from that instruction.” ⁽⁴¹⁾

Why does this gender ideology indoctrination case matter to Southern Baptists?

At the 2024 Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) annual meeting, messengers passed a resolution “On the God-Given Rights and Responsibilities of Parents,” affirming that parents have the freedom and right to make decisions regarding the upbringing, education and health care of their children without undue interference. Friday’s ruling reflects these convictions by affirming that public schools cannot override sincere religious beliefs of families through mandated instruction on gender ideology without notice or the opportunity to opt out. 

This decision is an evident victory for parental rights and religious liberty. It underscores that the state must respect the primary role of parents in shaping the moral and spiritual formation of their children. The ERLC continues to provide resources on parental rights and religious liberty in public education. The ERLC-issued white paper, “Parental Rights, Public Education, and Religious Liberty,” offers a theological understanding of why parents, not the state, hold the primary responsibility for their children’s moral and spiritual formation.