Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025): An analysis of the effects of the Taylor case on Montgomery County School

Author: Ryan Kemp, JD

May 12, 2026

[Image credit: The U.S. Supreme Court, Mahmoud v. Taylor case document]

Mahmoud V. Taylor

Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S.__ (2025) (Taylor)  is a United States Supreme Court decision that fundamentally changed the way educators and schools teach in the classroom. It enables a slippery slope about what can and cannot be included in the public education system. 

In 2023, the Montgomery County Board of Education, in the State of Maryland, introduced numerous LGBTQ+ texts into the school curriculum. These texts were approved for students from Kindergarten through Fifth grade. Some parents did not like the texts being provided. The School Board initially agreed to notify the parents that the texts would be taught in the classroom and allowed the parents to choose the option of excusing their child. After finding this to be an academic disturbance, the School Board later revoked the option for students to be excused. Tamer Mahmoud, the parent of three children in this county, wrote to the School Board listing numerous implications for his faith if the school were to keep the inclusive stories in the classroom. Tamer Mahmoud wrote that:

A school should provide a socially just environment (i.e., an environment of inclusion and trust). A school system should not preserve the rights of a certain group by infringing and discriminating against the rights of another. Parents should be able to drop off their kids at school with peace of mind that the parents and the school are working as one team supporting each other not working against each other. It should allow for the building of one solid community.

Mahmoud and other parents were concerned that the texts being provided in the classroom would have grave effects on their young and impressionable children. If the school were to include texts that supported and celebrated something like gay marriage, then the school would not be “supporting each other,” as Mahmoud wrote to the School Board.

Mahmoud, as well as other parents and associations, ended up bringing a lawsuit against Thomas Taylor, the Superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools. They claimed that their First Amendment rights had been violated due to the School Board’s no opt-out policy.

What is the First Amendment?

Fundamentally, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects religious beliefs, as well as free speech. In the context of Taylor, the focus is on the Free Exercise Clause. The Free Exercise Clause refers to the very first section of the First Amendment, which reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Free Exercise Clause guarantees the right of individuals to practice religion freely and offers protection for actions on those beliefs. 

The Supreme Court Case, Wisconsin v Yoder, U.S. 205 (1972) (Yoder), sets the foundation for Taylor. Yoder involves a conservative Amish Mennonite church, where school children do not attend high school. This conflicted with Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law, which required a child to attend school, either public or private, until the age of 16. Yoder took a look at the state’s interest in public education and the sincere beliefs of the Amish community. The Court stated that:

In order for Wisconsin to compel school attendance beyond the eighth grade against a claim that such attendance interferes with the practice of a legitimate religious belief, it must appear either that the State does not deny the free exercise of religious belief by its requirement or that there is a state interest of sufficient magnitude to override the interest claiming protection under the Free Exercise Clause. 

The State must balance the interests of the state, as well as the interests of the parents and the child. The case ultimately concluded, finding that the law requiring children to attend school until the age of 16 was in violation of the First Amendment. The Court stated that, “it seems clear that, if the State is empowered, as parens patriae, to ’save’ a child from himself or his Amish parents by requiring an additional two years of compulsory formal high school education, the State will, in large measure, influence, if not determine, the religious future of the child.”

Taylor heavily relies on the decision in Yoder. Taylor states that: 

As our decision in Yoder reflects, the question whether a law ‘substantially interfer[es] with the religious development’ of a child will always be fact-intensive. Id., at 218. It will depend on the specific religious beliefs and practices asserted, as well as the specific nature of the educational requirement or curricular feature at issue. 

A large factor in the Court's decision is that they found the books that were implemented to be beyond mere exposure. Teachers were reinforcing the values of the books. The Court found that there must be a “substantial interference" with the religious development of the child for the First Amendment claim to apply. The Court, in finding that there was substantial interference, stated that, “to understand why, start with the storybooks themselves. Like many books targeted at young children, the books 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.” The books themselves contained varying topics, from gay characters, same sex marriage, gender identity, as well as the usage of proper gendered pronouns. The Court reasoned that, concerning same sex marriage, many Americans “advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.”

Despite gay marriage being legal in all 50 states, the Court found that since the books advocate and attempt to normalize gay characters, this was a substantial interference with the child’s religious upbringing. They asserted that parents had the right to raise their child with their specific religious ideology. This raises the question, if a child cannot be exposed to concepts counter to their upbringing, where will they learn different ideas? Where will they learn about different values that make up a diverse community?

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in which Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in support. Justice Sotomayor states that, “exposing students to the ‘message’ that LGBTQ people exist, and that their loved ones may celebrate their marriages and life events, the majority says, is enough to trigger the most demanding form of judicial scrutiny.” The decision by the Supreme Court will have an immense impact on schools across the nation in what they can and cannot share with their students.

The Effects

The outcomes of Taylor are difficult to quantify. What Taylor made clear is that schools must give notice and provide an opt–out opportunity for students and parents when books are presented involving LGBTQ+ characters or topics. This will place an immense administrative burden on school districts, especially school districts with fewer expendable resources. It may lead them to not even try to include this inclusive subject matter. Schools will take on the fear of litigation if they choose a certain storybook. 

There is no clear line of what constitutes a “substantial interference” in the wake of Taylor. If a character wants to use a different pronoun, does this need parental consent? The concept of “substantial interference” has been muddied with the decision in Taylor. Wherein Yoder, as explained above, there was a clear substantial interference. 

However, in Taylor, it is harder to quantify. There were nine "controversial" books shown as examples in the case, with a wide range of stories and characters. An individual could take the reasoning from Taylor and apply it to many ideas that are counter to what is taught in a child's religious upbringing. If a parent could demonstrate a “substantial interference” taught in a science class, they would make the same argument presented by Taylor. 

As said in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 44 (2004), “no robust democracy insulates its citizens from views that they might find novel or even inflammatory.” In a system where there are so many burdens placed on educators, the last thing needed is another hurdle for them to clear when they are just attempting to include all families and all identities. Having the benefit of a well-rounded education allows everyone to question what they are taught and how they were raised to best see the world from their own unique perspective.

What Can Schools Still Do?

While what constitutes a “substantial interference” has been muddied by Taylor, teachers still have options for providing texts that might be deemed to be one. The criticism that the Supreme Court found in Taylor  was that the way the books were being taught was “beyond mere exposure.”  However, this does not prevent schools from providing the texts. Schools are still allowed to stock the books in the library. Teachers can still encourage students to read books that might contain a "substantial interference.” As students get older, teachers can encourage students to do book reports, or research on topics that interest them, and allow students to develop their own questions on topics that constitute a “substantial interference.” However, it is unclear if this would still need parental notification and consent. The effects of Taylor have still not been fully realized.  While the Supreme Court has made it more challenging to provide an education that includes exposure to different lifestyles and ideas, it is not impossible. It is important that teachers, schools, and educators across the country still provide students with an opportunity to be exposed to ideas that might be counter to their belief system. It is important for students from all backgrounds to feel seen. Many students have relatives who are in gay marriages. They may know someone who uses specific pronouns. Normalizing this in literature serves an important function.

---

Glossary

• Amish Mennonite: Is a Subset of Christianity who demonstrate conservative, plain traditions.

• Compulsory School Attendance Law: A state requirement for children of certain ages to attend school full-time.

• First Amendment: The First Amendment is a part of the United States Constitution that guarantees freedom concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.

• LGBTQ+: Is an acronym for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, trans, queer, and + covers identities that were not listed.

• parens patriae:  Latin for “parents of the country or homeland.”

• School Board: The entity that governs a school, with positions that are typically elected and filled by members of the community. School Boards host meetings that are open to the public, and encourage input from different voices in the community. School Boards can enact policies that govern the school. Board of Education refers to the same entity, but is the more formal terminology.

• Strict Scrutiny: The highest level of judicial review. It applies when a government action burdens a fundamental right or involves a suspect class.

• Substantial Interference: An interference that a reasonable person would find to be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying.

• Supreme Court: Is the highest judicial body in the country, but still has limited jurisdiction established by Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

• U.S. Constitution: Is the “supreme law” of the United States. It establishes a framework for the federal government, the scope, and power of the federal government, as well as guaranteeing certain individual fundamental rights and liberties.

---

References

1. 24-297 mahmoud v. Taylor (06/27/2025). Supremecourt.gov. (n.d.). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

2. boarddocs. (n.d.). Boarddocs.com. https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CSHS2H6ADB02/$file/Tamer%20Mahmoud%20052523%20BOE%20Testimony%20Revised.pdf

3. Elk Grove Unified School Dist. V. Newdow | 542 U.S. 1 (2004) | justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia. (n.d.-a). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/542/1/

4. Mahmoud v. Taylor | 606 U.S. ___ (2025) | justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia. (n.d.-b). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/606/24-297/

5. Obergefell v. Hodges | 576 U.S. 644 (2015) | justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia. (n.d.-c). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/

6. U.S. Constitution - First Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | congress.gov | Library of Congress. Congress.gov. (n.d.). https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

7. Wisconsin v. Yoder | 406 U.S. 205 (1972) | justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia. (n.d.-d). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/205/