Maryland School Board Ruling Sparks National Debate Over Parental Rights in Education

By Devin Breitenberg

In a landmark case that has ignited fierce debate across the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to rule on a contentious decision by the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland to eliminate parental opt-out provisions for curricula featuring storybooks addressing gender identity and sexual orientation. The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, pits a coalition of Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents against the school board, raising profound questions about religious liberty, parental rights, and the role of public schools in navigating sensitive social issues. As of April 23, 2025, the Supreme Court’s deliberations, following oral arguments on April 22, signal a potential shift in how schools balance inclusivity with individual freedoms.

Background: The Montgomery County Policy Shift

The controversy began in 2022 when Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland’s largest school district, introduced a set of “LGBTQ-inclusive” storybooks into its English Language Arts curriculum for elementary students, from pre-kindergarten through fifth grade. Titles such as Pride Puppy, which depicts a puppy lost during a Pride parade, Born Ready, about a transgender child, and Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, which explores same-sex marriage, were selected to “better represent all Montgomery County families” and promote “educational equity.” Initially, parents could opt their children out of lessons involving these books, aligning with Maryland’s longstanding policy of allowing opt-outs for instruction related to family life and human sexuality.

In March 2023, however, the school board reversed course, announcing that parents would no longer be notified about when these books would be used nor allowed to exempt their children from related instruction. The board justified the change by arguing that the books were part of the language arts curriculum, not sex education, and that opt-outs undermined the district’s goals of fostering inclusivity and reducing stigmatization. This decision sparked immediate backlash from parents, particularly those from religious communities, who argued that the policy violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion by compelling their children to engage with material that conflicted with their beliefs.

The Legal Battle: From Local Courts to the Supreme Court

The parents, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, filed a federal lawsuit in May 2023, alleging that the Montgomery County policy burdened their ability to raise their children according to their religious convictions. They contended that their faiths—Islam, Roman Catholicism, and Ukrainian Orthodoxy—require them to guide their children’s education on issues of gender, sexuality, and family life. The lawsuit claimed that the school board’s refusal to allow opt-outs forced parents into an untenable choice: violate their religious beliefs or withdraw their children from public schools.

Lower courts, however, were unsympathetic. In August 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that parents had no “fundamental right” to opt their children out of the curriculum, arguing that exposure to ideas conflicting with their faith did not constitute a violation of religious liberty. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision in May 2024, with a 2-1 ruling that the parents lacked standing because they had not shown their children were directly harmed by the policy. Dissenting Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, appointed by President Trump, argued that the policy placed a substantial burden on religious parents by denying them the ability to shield their children from teachings that contradicted their beliefs.

Undeterred, the parents appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and heard oral arguments on April 22, 2025. The case has drawn national attention, with the Trump administration filing a brief in support of the parents, asserting that the policy effectively coerces families to abandon public education to uphold their religious obligations.

Supreme Court Arguments: A Divided Bench

During the April 22 arguments, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared inclined to side with the parents, though the scope of a potential ruling remains unclear. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett expressed scepticism about the school board’s position. Alito, who read aloud from Uncle Bobby’s Wedding during the session, questioned whether the curriculum constituted indoctrination rather than neutral education. Kavanaugh, a Montgomery County resident, invoked Maryland’s historical legacy as a “beacon” of religious liberty, suggesting that the policy might infringe on parents’ rights to direct their children’s upbringing. Barrett probed whether the parents’ objections stemmed from the ideas themselves or their mandatory inclusion in classroom instruction, hinting at the need to distinguish between exposure and coercion.

The court’s liberal justices, including Ketanji Brown Jackson, raised concerns about the broader implications of granting opt-outs. Jackson questioned whether parents could demand exemptions for other classroom discussions, such as a teacher sharing photos from a same-sex wedding or acknowledging a transgender classmate. “This is not just about books,” she said, emphasizing that the case could affect how schools address diversity and inclusion writ large. The American Civil Liberties Union, in a filing, warned that allowing religious exemptions could disrupt public education by enabling parents to challenge a wide range of curricular content, from historical figures who were LGBTQ to scientific lessons conflicting with certain beliefs.

Maryland’s Legislative Context: HB0161 Fuels Tensions

The Supreme Court case coincides with a related controversy in Maryland’s state legislature. In February 2025, the Maryland House passed House Bill 161 (HB0161), sponsored by Delegates Vanessa Atterbeary and Kris Fair. The bill removes gender identity and sexual orientation lessons from the “Family Life and Human Sexuality” framework, where opt-outs are permitted, and places them in a separate category that mandates participation. Atterbeary defended the bill, arguing that it ensures all students feel represented and included in school. Critics, including parents like Jessica Garland from Carroll County, decried the measure as a “violation of parental rights,” accusing the state of overriding local frameworks that prioritize family choice.

Carroll County, unlike Montgomery, has maintained a localized curriculum that allows opt-outs for gender identity lessons while keeping students in other family life instruction. Data from Carroll County Public Schools, reported by Spotlight on Maryland, showed that more elementary parents preferred this approach over the state’s inclusive framework. HB0161’s passage has intensified fears among parents that the state is centralizing control over sensitive curricula, further eroding their influence.

Broader Implications: A National Flashpoint

The Mahmoud v. Taylor case is part of a larger national debate over gender identity and sexual orientation in schools. Across the U.S., parents and advocacy groups like Moms for Liberty have challenged policies they view as infringing on parental rights, while progressive educators argue that inclusive curricula are essential for supporting marginalized students. In Maryland, a deep-blue state, the issue has divided even school board candidates, with some, like St. Mary’s County’s Elena Brewer, arguing that pronoun policies and inclusive lessons introduce “age-inappropriate” content, while others, like Anne Arundel County’s Erica McFarland, emphasize schools’ duty to provide safe spaces for transgender and gender-nonconforming students.

The case also intersects with federal policy. The Biden administration’s 2024 attempt to expand Title IX protections to cover gender identity and sexual orientation was blocked in 26 Republican-led states, highlighting the patchwork of approaches to LGBTQ inclusion in education. Montgomery County’s guidelines, which encourage support plans for transgender students without mandatory parental notification, have been upheld in lower courts but remain legally contentious.

What’s at Stake?

As the Supreme Court deliberates, expected to issue a ruling by early July 2025, the outcome could reshape the landscape of public education. A decision favouring the parents might establish a precedent requiring schools to offer opt-outs for curricula that conflict with religious beliefs, potentially empowering parents to challenge other content. Conversely, a ruling upholding the school board could reinforce schools’ authority to prioritize inclusivity over individual objections, limiting parental control over classroom material.

Critics of the Montgomery County policy, including the Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon, argue that embedding LGBTQ-themed content across subjects like language arts—rather than confining it to sex education—makes it “impossible to remove the content or the children from the classes where it is taught.” Supporters, including the school board, contend that the curriculum reflects the diversity of modern families and prepares students to navigate a pluralistic society.

Conclusion: A Defining Moment

The Mahmoud v. Taylor case encapsulates a broader cultural struggle over who gets to decide what children learn about gender and sexuality. For the parents in Montgomery County, it’s a fight to preserve their religious values and authority over their children’s upbringing. For the school board, it’s about ensuring that all students see themselves represented in the classroom. As the Supreme Court weighs these competing interests, its decision will likely reverberate far beyond Maryland, shaping the delicate balance between individual rights and collective goals in America’s public schools.

For now, the nation watches as this small but significant battle in Montgomery County tests the boundaries of freedom, education, and inclusion in an increasingly polarized society.

Devin Breitenberg is a legal consultant and senior counsel at Devin Law LLC and legal contributor  for Veritas Expositae.  You can reach her at devin.breitenberg@veritasexpositae.com