The Supreme Court is hearing arguments over which books are appropriate for schoolchildren in one of three religious rights cases set to be decided this summer. What has largely been a local and state issue has risen to the SCOTUS docket with Mahmoud v Taylor, a case brought by six parents of Islamic and Christian backgrounds.
Mahmoud v Taylor originated in Montgomery County, Maryland, which is the most religiously diverse county in the United States. The issue dates to a 2022-23 term decision that elected to add various sets of LGBTQIA+ reading materials to each grade curriculum between Kindergarten and High School. While students and parents were originally given an opportunity to opt out of such instruction, the number of families who chose to do so was far greater than anticipated, leading to issues of absenteeism and worries over alienating children who participated. Thus, the materials became mandatory curriculum, and parents sued the district.
Most states in America allow families to opt out of any lesson plans that discuss health or human sexuality, allowing for individual modalities of appropriate learning for students of diverse backgrounds and development. Following the high number of children who would have been removed from the classroom for this specific curriculum, however, the Montgomery school board reclassified the books as general materials that would no longer be confined to such subjects.
Overturning the lower court’s decision on Mahmoud v Taylor- which fell in favor of the school board- is a step towards realizing the broader Republican dream of a Parental Bill of Rights, legislation for which passed the House in 2023 but was stymied by Biden’s Democratic Senate. The bill provides for full access to and qualified control over a child’s curriculum and school life. A decision by the Supreme Court in favor of the Montgomery district parents rather than the school would create a precedent towards parental oversight rather than mandatory governmental indoctrination.
The specific case of these books highlights the aggressive tendencies of local school boards, which have assumed an increasingly activist position in recent decades. This was not a small minority of parents- therefore families- who felt the materials inappropriate. The board only made the materials in question mandatory once a sizeable percentage of the student body withdrew from the instruction, making it clear that a meaningful percentage of people felt uncomfortable. Rather than work with families to find comfortable compromises or alternatives, the board chose create a legal situation, not only alienating parents but costing large amounts that could otherwise be directed towards learning.
Given oral arguments, it seems likely that the conservative SCOTUS will rule in favor of parental rights when it hands down its ruling this summer. While the parents in Mahmoud v Taylor are not asking the Montgomery school district to remove the offending materials entirely from instruction, safeguarding the ability to opt out of controversial instruction should be an assumed right of every American family.
How do you feel about Mahmoud v Taylor? Should parents have the right to determine which materials are appropriate for their children to learn from?
Hilary Gunn is a Connecticut native with a degree in Criminal Justice from the George Washington University. She works for a nonprofit and has previously collaborated with the CT GOP as an activist, political campaign manager and field director, and social media organizer. She is currently serving in her fourth term of municipal office and has previously acted as a delegate on the Republican Town Committee.