Supreme Court Decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor

This guidance is non-binding.

Introduction

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. ___ (2025).

In Mahmoud, the Supreme Court reversed two lower courts’ refusal to grant a preliminary injunction based on a Maryland school district’s failure to provide appropriate notice of, and a related refusal to allow elementary school parents to opt their children out of, lessons that incorporated curricular material that contained LGBTQ+ themes.

The Rule Announced by the Court

The fundamental holding in Mahmoud is that where a school (or its board) adopts policies or curricular materials that the school has reason to know will “substantially interfere with the religious development” of parents’ children and/or will pose a “very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices” that parents wish to instill in their children, the school must provide notice to parents of the policy or material and an opportunity for the parents to opt their children out of the policy or exposure to the material.

Under the specific facts presented in Mahmoud -- an elementary classroom curriculum that incorporated LGBTQ+ themed storybooks -- the Supreme Court instructed the lower court to issue the preliminary injunction requiring such a notice and opt out option pending final resolution of the litigation.

Caution is Warranted in Implementing Mahmoud

Several aspects of the ruling in Mahmoud warrant the exercise of due caution for local educational agencies (LEAs) in conforming their practices and policies to the new requirements set forth by the Court. These factors include:

1. the ruling is based on highly fact-specific circumstances, warranting the development of locally determined implementation based on the facts unique to each school;
   
   
2. the ruling provides little or no direction for implementation by schools as to very critical matters, including, by way of example,
   
   
   • whether and how knowledge of religious impacts on students should be imputed to schools;
     
     
   • how schools are to determine that religious-based impacts are significant enough to require notice and opt out procedures;
     
     
   • what efforts schools must make to separate these policies and materials that cause the requisite religious-based impact from those aspects that do not; and
     
     
   • whether educational services must be provided to students whose parents opt out of selected activities, classes or material.

Key Takeaways from Mahmoud

Though the full extent is not yet predictable, the Mahmoud case will necessarily impact how LEAs approach the implementation of policies and curricular materials that may substantially interfere with children’s religious development or “undermin[e] the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes instill in the child.” Under these circumstances, LEAs may be required to notify parents of the plan and provide parents with an opportunity to opt out on behalf of their students.

In light of the unique circumstances presented locally, each LEA should determine what policies or materials require a Mahmoud notice and opt out process, and how to implement such a process. The Court emphasized that an analysis of whether a particular school policy or curriculum “substantially interfer[es] with the religious development of a child” will always be fact-intensive. Accordingly, each LEA should consult legal counsel as to the specifics that apply in their circumstance.

The Court in Mahmoud did identify certain factors that may guide LEAs in deciding whether to provide families notice and opt out of exposure to certain instruction or curriculum on the basis of the impact that exposure to such material may have on students. These factors include:

1. the nature of the specific religious beliefs and practices asserted (likely referring to the requirement that there be a good faith nexus between the religious belief/practice and the threat presented by the educational material);
   
   
2. the age of the child (i.e., elementary as compared to high school age); and
   
   
3. the context of the exposure (neutral information as compared to a presentation that is “hostile” to religious beliefs or exerts, either explicitly or otherwise, “pressure to conform”).

The California Department of Education and California Law Continue to Promote a Safe, Fair, and Welcoming Learning Environment in all Schools

It is important to note that Mahmoud does not invalidate or preempt California’s strong protections for LGBTQ+ youth from discrimination, harassment, and bullying. Such laws include:

• The California Healthy Youth Act (Cal. Educ. Code § 51930(b)(2)) (promoting for pupils “the knowledge and skills they need to develop healthy attitudes concerning adolescent growth and development, body image, gender, sexual orientation, relationships, marriage, and family”);
  
  
• The California Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act (Cal. Educ. Code § 51204.5) (“Instruction in social sciences shall include…study of the role and contributions of…LGBTQ+ Americans…to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society”); and
  
  
• The California FAIR Education Act (Cal. Educ. Code § 51500 (“A teacher shall not give instruction and a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in [Education Code] Section 220”).

Years of in-depth and peer-reviewed research have amply demonstrated the substantial educational benefit yielded by representing students' identities in public school curriculum. Indeed, the Mahmoud ruling should not be interpreted to require or allow the erasure of any particular group from public school curricular content. In short, California state law continues to prohibit discrimination against any particular group in curriculum or instruction.

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the California Department of Education remain unequivocally committed to the belief that it is not only possible, it is of fundamental importance to fully include all Californians of every background, including all religious faiths and family structures, in a rigorous, appropriate, and safe educational environment while at school, and that inclusion remains possible while providing appropriate options that will allow parents to continue to exercise their right to instill religious beliefs and practices in their children.

August 6, 2025 Letter: New Guidance on Supreme Court Decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor