Parent‘s rights to navigate their children‘s moral upbringing in public schools prevails. Lessons of the Mahmoud v. Taylor case

https://doi.org/10.63189/NJKN9113

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case in which parents sought the right to opt their children out of certain public school lessons involving LGBTQ-themed children’s books. The Court’s  decision strengthened and solidified parents‘ rights to the free exercise of religion, concluding that the school’s policy prohibiting opt-outs violated this constitutional protection.

Parental Guidance and Child Development: How the U.S. Legal System Reflects UN Standards

The United States operates its own distinct child protection system grounded in major regional human rights instruments, such as the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.^[1] Although, the USA has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)^[2], this does not mean that it falls behind the UN child protection system. The recent Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor^[3] and the rationale behind this Judgement very much reflect this alignment with norms expressed in the UN CRC. This decision can be understood within the broader context of international children’s rights principles, as the Supreme Court’s decision does not oppose its framework but actually respects its scope and certain key provisions, especially concerning respecting the parental rights on navigating the moral upbringing of their children and the parental guidance to their upbringing and development.^[4] These parental rights and responsibilities has been underscored in the decision in connection with sexual-ethical considerations and the related educational policies in public schools. The Supreme Court’s recognition that young children are particularly, “impressionable” and require parental guidance in religious matters reflects the UN CRC’s understanding that children’s rights must be balanced with parental responsibilities and the child’s developmental stage. Rather than creating conflict with international norms, the Mahmoud v. Taylor decision demonstrates how domestic constitutional protections can complement and reinforce the broader international framework for protecting both children’s rights and parental autonomy in matters of conscience and religion.

Undeniably, the broader ideological and moral dilemmas within the USA, where political and social values are in constant development, shifting with changing administrations, court rulings, and cultural debates have displayed their effects in various fields. These tensions often surface in areas where personal liberty intersects with public interest, particularly in matters involving children and education, where the recent case also dwelved into.

The Supreme Court Rewrites the Classroom Rulebook

A revealing example of this dynamic can be seen in a recent USA Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor  case that addressed the complex and delicate balance between parental rights and the state’s role in shaping the moral education of children in public schools. In this case, the Supreme Court was tasked with navigating weighing the rights of parents to guide their children‘s upbringing against broader societal values promoted through public institutions especially schools. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled in 6-3 ruling ratio, that parents have and can exercise their constitutional right to shield their children from school content that is in conflict with their religious beliefs, which now extends to LGBTQ+ inclusive content presented in children’s story books.

A group of parents from wide religious background filed the case against the Montgomery County Public Schools‘ action to introduce a series of LGBTQ+ inclusive picture books^[5] to the Curriculum. The school board originally did allow for opt-out option on the request of the parents, which was consistent with the internal Board Policy, although the school rescinded the parental opt-out policy, arguing, that by granting the big number of opt-out requests would disrupt the stable classroom environment.^[6] The opposing parents, keeping in mind to freely exercise their right to ensure their children’s moral and religious upbringing according to their own values, were not satisfied with the demolishing of the opt-out system, nor with the exposure of LGBTQ+ content to their children as part of the curriculum. The parents initiated a lawsuit to the District Court of Maryland, emphasizing that the school’s policy undermined their right to the free exercise of religion.

The Supreme Court brought in the 1972 Wisconsin v. Yoder case, which allowed Amish parents to withdraw their children from formal education after eighth grade, and declared its ,,general applicability”.^[7] This unexpected interpretation of the Yoder case goes beyond the specificities of the Amish community, and established that the current parents have same concerns about the religious freedom and values they want to pass on to their children, to be diminished or undermined by the public educational policy.

Another pressing issue was the supposed effect of these storybooks on the pupils. While the School Board claimed these books to be ideologically neutral, the Supreme Court carefully analyzed on how these books might have reshape the children’s value system, district from what they are taught at home. The Supreme Court found that they are rather, “normative” materials designed “to present certain values while rejecting other values”.^[8] The notion that these stories told to young children contain moral messages contrary to their family value systems presented at home, which suggests that active engagement and promotion is more significant than mere exposure to diversity.

Beyond the mere stories, what the Court found convincing, is the educational guidelines on how the teachers should navigate the discussion about these topics, which can have a, “coercive nature”^[9]. Here the vulnerability of the elementary student’s development was highlighted, as, impressionable children” are likely to accept without questioning the school authority, making them particularly open to institutional messaging that conflicts with their families’ religious teachings.^[10]

Furthermore, a strict scrutiny test was applied by the Supreme Court in the present case. While acknowledging that schools have legitimate concerns about maintaining an undisturbed class environment the Supreme Court found significant flaws in the Board’s execution. The school inconsistently applied it opt-out system, continuing to accommodate parents in other contexts like the  “Family Life and Human Sexuality” curriculum. The difficulties of administrability are not satisfactory when constitutional rights are at stake.^[11]

To the Judgement a concurring and a dissenting opinion was attached. Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion drove attention to the historical context of the risen issues. He underscored the lack of historical examples that would support the educational necessity of gender identity instruction, as well as the lack educational experiences on these innovations which have withstood the test of time.^[12] Moreover, he pointed out the Board’s hypocritical approach to diversity and inclusion, as by the denial of opt-out options as well as the institutional hostility towards religious parents.^[13]

Additionally, the dissenting opinion of Justice Sotomayor expresses alarm that the majority's decision might fundamentally reshape American public education. While arguing the misinterpretation of the Yoder case, the most pressing argument lies in the future practical implementation of the Judgement, forcing schools to keep track and administer for a wide range of religious communities, and to know their diverse doctrines, causes schools to become overburdened. Most importantly, the dissent warns about the slippery slope of implementation, as it could enable parents to extend the opt-out policy to other contexts such as lessons on evolution, women’s evolving societal roles, and civil rights.^[14] The dissent warns that giving parents ultimate veto power over the moral and educational upbringing of their children threatens the public education system, which has traditionally been under the authority of local school administration.^[15]

Parents Take the Lead: Reclaiming Moral Authority in Public School Education

Conclusively, the Judgement presents a clear shift toward parental rights taking precedence over school administration in value-based educational matters, as the tension between respecting family values and maintaining educational coherence intensified. This Judgement, while clarifying important constitutional principles, also highlights the reoccurring conflicts between progressive educational philosophies and traditional family values, where unfortunately children become the paws of this larger cultural debate.

A particularly sensitive field is the sexual education of children as well as how and when and by whom they are exposed to topics about sexuality and gender identity. What stems from the Judgement is the legitimate claim: religious parents have a justifiable right to guide their children’s first encounter and exposure to these topics in a way they fundamentally wish to according their values, something the school policy does not accommodate. While we should reject religious extremism and any abuse of children with zero tolerance, that is not the central issue here. Rather, it concerns parents’ desire to prioritize religious perspectives on matters of sexuality and gender which is their fundamental right to do so, which shall be proportionally accommodated by the school board.

Rather than framing this as a battle between parents and schools over children’s upbringing, the debate should refocus on what genuinely serves children’s wellbeing and development. While the schools have legitimate interests in preparing students for life in a diverse world, so do the parents, who have irreplaceable and primary roles in guiding their children’s moral and spiritual development. This lesson is evidently stemming from the Judgment, which calls for carefully balancing parents’ religious freedom and their right to direct their children’s upbringing with schools’ ability to offer diverse and child-sensitive content without coercion.

^[1] See more in: Katarzyna ZOMBORY (2024) ‘Children’s Rights in the Inter-American System of Human Rights:

Framework and Institutions’. In: Anikó RAISZ (ed.) Children’s Rights in Regional Human Rights

Systems. pp. 191–209. Miskolc–Budapest, Central European Academic Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.71009/2024.ar.crirhrs_9

^[2] Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in New York on 20 November 1989 by General Assembly resolution 44/25, UN Treaty Series vol. 1577, no. 27531 ( CRC)

^[3] Mahmoud v. Taylor, 24-297 , Supreme Court ruling of 27 June 2025

^[4] More precisely, the Supreme Court’s emphasis on parental rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing aligns with Article 14 of the UN CRC, which recognizes the child's right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, while simultaneously respecting ,,the rights and duties of parents to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.” Additionally, Article 18 emphasizes that parents have, the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child,” while Article 5 acknowledges the importance of parental guidance in accordance with children’s evolving capacities.

^[5] The books include Prince & Knight, a fairy tale in which a prince falls in love with a male knight and they marry to widespread joy, and Born Ready, the story of a young transgender child, and Love Violet, Love Violet follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira.

^[6] Mahmoud v. Taylor (606 U. S. 2025) p. 1.

^[7] Ibid, p. 5.

^[8] Ibid, p. 22.

^[9] Ibid, p. 26.

^[10] Ibid, p. 26.

^[11] Ibid, pp. 38-40.

^[12] Justice Thomas concurring opinion (Mahmoud v. Taylor; 606 U. S. 2025) p. 3.

^[13] Ibid, pp. 8-9.

^[14] Justice Sotomayor dissenting opinion (Mahmoud v. Taylor; 606 U. S. 2025) p. 23.

^[15] Ibid, p. 38.

References

Asma, UDDIN (2025) ‘When inclusion becomes compulsion: Mahmoud v. Taylor, pluralism, and public education’, SCOTUSblog, 1 July 2025. Available at: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/07/when-inclusion-becomes-compulsion-mahmoud-v-taylor-pluralism-and-public-education/ (Accessed: 10.07.2025).

Katarzyna ZOMBORY (2024) ‘Children’s Rights in the Inter-American System of Human Rights: Framework and Institutions’. In: Anikó RAISZ (ed.) Children’s Rights in Regional Human Rights Systems. pp. 191–209. Miskolc–Budapest, Central European Academic Publishing. https://doi.org/10.71009/2024.ar.crirhrs_9.

Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) 606 U.S.

United Nations General Assembly (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child.