A handful of Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents in Montgomery County, Maryland asked their school board for something that used to be unremarkable: Tell us before our six-year-old reads a storybook about a same-sex wedding, and let us opt out if we object. The board said no. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court told the board it was wrong, by a vote of 6-3.
Read more Groceries Illustrate That Communists Can’t Do Math
That case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, didn’t hand parents a red pen for the public-school curriculum. It handed them something narrower, and I’d argue more useful: the right to know what’s coming and the right to keep their own kids out of it.
Montgomery County Public Schools had approved a set of storybooks for its language arts curriculum that included a same-sex wedding and a Pride parade among other LGBTQ+ themes. The district let parents excuse their children from those specific lessons for a while. Then it stopped, citing the hassle of tracking absences across a district of nearly 160,000 students in one of the most religiously diverse counties in the country. Parents sued, arguing that the no opt-out policy ran straight over their First Amendment right to direct their children’s religious upbringing.
This isn’t new legal ground so much as old ground the Court decided to stand on again. Back in 1923, Meyer v. Nebraska struck down a state law banning foreign-language instruction on the theory that parents, not the state Legislature, get to decide what their children learn. Two years later, Pierce v. Society of Sisters knocked down an Oregon law that would have forced every child into public school, protecting the right of Catholic families to send their kids to parochial schools instead. Both cases rest on the same premise: The state can require an education, but it can’t dictate whose vision of a good one gets taught.
Wisconsin v. Yoder pushed that premise further in 1972, letting Amish families pull their teenagers out of school entirely after eighth grade rather than send them to classes the Court found threatened their community’s religious way of life. Mahmoud is the more modest cousin of Yoder. Nobody’s leaving the building. They’re just skipping one lesson.
Justice Alito, writing for the majority, made the underlying logic explicit: A parent’s right to direct a child’s religious upbringing is worth little if it stops functioning the moment that child walks into a public school classroom. The Board had defended its no-opt-out policy partly on the theory that carving out exceptions would stigmatize the kids who couldn’t opt out of anything. The majority dismantled that logic in a single line of reasoning: A school can’t rescue one group of students from stigma by stigmatizing another.
Practically, the ruling gives religious parents three things: advance notice when a school plans to use material touching gender identity or sexuality in a way that conflicts with their faith, the right to pull their child from that specific lesson, and legal teeth if the school refuses — teeth sharp enough that Montgomery County ended up paying $1.5 million to the families represented by Becket Law once the litigation concluded.
Districts nationwide are already building the plumbing this requires. Montgomery County itself adopted a new administrative regulation after the ruling, titled Curriculum Transparency and Requests to be Excused from Instruction, spelling out exactly how a parent flags an objection and how a school has to respond. Other districts are doing the same: flagging which books and lesson plans touch family life, sexuality, or gender identity, then routing parental notices before the material reaches a classroom. California’s Department of Education issued its own guidance on the ruling and, true to form, opened by informing districts that the guidance is non-binding — an interesting way to describe compliance with a Supreme Court holding, but not shocking for a state that treats federal mandates the way teenagers treat curfews. It’s a paperwork problem now instead of a lawsuit later, which counts as progress in my line of work, where the whole trick is catching the liability before it matures.
Read more Globalism Must Be Vanquished
What the ruling does not give parents is a veto over what other people’s kids read. You can’t march into a school board meeting and demand a book get pulled from the shelf districtwide, satisfying as that fantasy might sound after sitting through one too many of those meetings. The opt-out belongs to your child, not to the curriculum.
The dissent, written by Justice Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, warned that the decision would produce chaos in public schools nationwide and bury districts under an impossible administrative burden, with courts left to referee which lessons on patriotism, interfaith marriage, or a teacher’s family photo might trigger the next opt-out fight. Two law professors at George Washington University went farther in a law review article published after the ruling, calling Mahmoud an extraordinary break from decades of settled constitutional practice. That’s not a frivolous worry, and plenty of school administrators are having the same nightmare. But the Court didn’t hand out a blank check. It required a specific showing: A policy with no opt-out whatsoever, paired with material that pushes a particular viewpoint on sexuality and gender rather than simply acknowledging that such people exist. Mere exposure to a fact of the world doesn’t clear that bar. A curriculum built to instruct children on what to believe about it does.
The three left-wing justices’ broader warning, that opt-out logic could eventually reach lessons far beyond storybooks, is a fair prediction, not a rebuttal. Every new constitutional line invites test cases at its edges. That’s what courts are for, and it’s also what appellate dockets are for over the next decade.
I spend my professional life around disclosure obligations. Expert witness work in fiduciary duty cases comes down to one recurring question: Did the party with more information tell the party with less what it needed to know, before it needed to know it? Schools aren’t investment advisers, and parents aren’t clients, but the underlying failure in Montgomery County was the same one I see in half my case files: An institution decided it knew better than the people it served and narrowed what those people were told. The remedy the Court fashioned — notice first, then a choice — is the same remedy that shows up in nearly every fiduciary consent decree I’ve ever reviewed.
The bigger point is worth remembering whenever a constitutional right feels theoretical. Rights that exist on paper and rights that actually get exercised are two different things. Meyer and Pierce have been sitting on the books for a century. Most parents never knew they had a claim on them until a school board in Maryland forced the question all the way to the Supreme Court.
If you’re a parent who wants that notice, ask your district for its policy in writing now. Don’t wait for a fight to find out whether the school follows the law. Mahmoud gives you the grounds to stand on. It doesn’t stand there in your place.
Read more Single-bureau credit reports endanger mortgage market
Image: Tom Hilton via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.