Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 07/23/2025 2:07:47 PM PDT by Kudsman
Member Services Advocacy Training and Events Newsroom About Calendar Store District Vacancies Contact Log In Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor could be a game changer for public education On Board Online • July 21, 2025
By Pilar Sokol Director of Legal Services
Just before the end of this year's session, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision which many have referred to as a game changer for public education.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the high court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who are in the process of challenging their school district's refusal to excuse their children from classroom instruction that involves the use of certain books in grades K-5. Some of the books tell stories about same-sex relationships, including same sex marriages, and some involve the topic of gender identity.
The injunction requires the school board to restart a prior policy of giving parents advance notice of when the books would be used in the classroom and allowing parents to excuse their children from that instruction.
The court sent the case back to a lower court for further proceedings consistent with the high court's majority opinion. Still, the opinion foreshadows the Mahmoud majority's disposition regarding resolution of the merits of the case. Thus, it is important to understand what the case is and is not about, and why the high court's majority (five justices and one concurrence) determined a preliminary injunction was warranted in this case.
The district began incorporating the LGBTQ+ texts into the English language arts curriculum after determining the current books were not representative of many in their school community because they did not include LGBTQ+ characters. While books were included in grades PK-12, the Mahmoud decision involves only the storybooks assigned for use in grades K-5 (students ages 5-11).
The district expected teachers to include the storybooks in classroom instruction in the same way as other books. The district issued a guidance giving teachers suggested responses to potential questions from students and parents.
In response to parental push back regarding the introduction of the books, the district initially agreed to give parents advanced notice when any of the books in question would be used in classroom instruction and allow opt-outs. Due to a high number of opt-out requests, the district discontinued both the advanced notice and opt-out arrangement.
According to district staff and the school board, the number of opt-out requests made the process unmanageable. The court commented in the majority decision that school districts "cannot escape free exercise [of religion] obligations by crafting a curriculum so cumbersome that a substantial number of parents elect to opt out."
The parents argued that they have a religious duty to train their children according to their faith regarding what it means to be male or female and matters involving marriage, human sexuality and other related themes. They asserted that the district's actions violated their right to the free exercise of their religion, and the high court majority agreed.
To grant a preliminary injunction, a court must make certain determinations, including the likelihood of the litigant's success on the merits of the underlying claim. In that context, the court determined that the district's actions "substantial[ly] interfere[d]" with the parents' free exercise rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They also presented a "very real threat" of undermining the parents' ability to instill in their children their religious beliefs, and this further imposed an unconstitutional burden on the exercise of those beliefs.
In the majority's view, the district's actions substantially interfered with the parents' exercise of religious rights for a variety of reasons based on the combination of the introduction of the books, the district's instructions to teachers and the discontinuance of the notice and opt-out option.
The court found the books were normative. That is, they presented "certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary [ones] as things to be rejected." Teachers were encouraged to reinforce the values and beliefs to be celebrated, and children encouraged to adopt those specific views.
The district's actions also posed an "objective danger" to undermining the parents' teachings based on their children's susceptibility to their teachers' influence.
As to the imposition of an unconstitutional burden, the district's actions, in part, conditioned the parents' access to public education on their acceptance of a burden on religious exercise. Although the district had an interest in maintaining a safe school environment for all to learn in, their actions were not narrowly tailored to advance that interest.
So where do school districts go from here? As a starting point, school officials should examine whether their current policies or practices resemble any of the circumstances in Montgomery County. While creating an automatic, universal opt-out policy is an option, be sure to discuss practical implications with district administrators and the concept of a sincere religious belief with your school attorney. Your policy should be well-suited to local needs and realities, including demographics. Possibly with the assistance of your school attorney, identify any policies and practices that might be impacted by Mahmoud and may be in need of possible revision.
To learn more about the case itself, open questions and possible answers including its impact on curriculum, and future potential challenges such as the expansion of opt-outs into other areas, attend NYSSBA's Summer Law Conference in person in Albany on July 31, or virtually on Aug. 5 and 6. In the meantime, feel free to contact NYSSBA's Legal Department with questions you might have at legal@nyssba.org.
Go back | Show other stories Contact Us New York State School Boards Association 24 Century Hill Drive, Suite 200 Latham, New York 12110-2125 518.783.0200 phone 518.783.0211 fax Contact Us
Quicklinks Advertising with NYSSBA District Vacancies New Member Resources Policy Services Running for School Board Staff Directory Get Social Twitter Facebook Instagram LinkedIn
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Ultimately the only way to make anything work is for the money to follow each student at both local and federal level.
Any other solution is not really a solution.
Internet classes, new technology possibilities should be considered. Big classes on line with teaching assistants for a) groups of 20 students b) groups of 10 students c) groups of 5 students d) only students from the same family.
1) teaching assistants in person. 2) teaching assistants on-line.
3) Another model.
Muslims and Roman Catholics doing good together for their kids.
Homeschool
Wait until NAMBLA, the MooseLimb Brutherhood, or the ChiComs decide to open schools.
Our enemies use our freedom against us.
Shiiitehead/Karen Parents should have no say.
Christian Summer Camp Pedos should have no say.
Teachers Unions should have no say.
Fundamental Polygamists should have no say.
Logic and Reason should rule.
But who’s Logic, and who’s Reason?
So who then gets to decide?
Why in the hell does the school board need to inject sex perversion into education ?
Due to the gay mafia and leftist education establishment.
The schools should “opt out” of being virtually employed as LGBT culture war activists, instead of totally neutral bystanders; leaving the issues for society outside of the schools to resolve, individual by individual, in accordance with their own cherished beliefs and opinions of conscience. The only behavioral issue for the schools is NOT for preaching an LGBT activist cultural point of view, but ONLY for staff and students to practice tolerance, not phony school mandated “acceptance”, of others whose behavior one disagrees with. BEYOND that there should be NOTHING in the K-12 curriculum to say on the subject.
Can I interest you in running for a Jersey school board seat? Please. Neighbor.
What school board/town?
“Due to a high number of opt-out requests, the district discontinued both the advanced notice and opt-out arrangement.”
How do we know that? Take their word? We’re talking PUBLIC SCHOOLS here. And, at what level is a ‘high number’, 200?, or 2?
...and if it really is a ‘high number’, then it make more sense to KILL the whole thing. Instead, they force everyone into it. It’s like raising the price of house because no one is making offers to buy it.
Any one. You pick. I’ll send ya some cash. Heck I may even walk your d8strict to get ballot sigs for you if needed. How many lines on your local ballot?
Correct! The only solution is to have money follow the child.
Why?
Axiom: It is ****Impossible*** to have a religiously, culturally, or politically neutral education. Such a state of neutrality is impossible in the mind of any sentient human!
Government schooling never was and never can be neutral!
Sadly, few conservatives recognize that this is the fundamental problem that underlies **all** government schooling.
Please read my post #12.
It is **impossible*** for any school to be religiously, culturally, or politically neutral.
Government schooling never was, is not now, and never can be “neutral”.
We have a few dominate types in our area - Liberal seculars, Jewish and otherwise, Liberal “Hispanics”. and Orthodox Jewish.
The orthodox Jewish send their kids to their own schools and care not much for any local politics.
While the few mixed rest of us are outnumbered by the secular Liberals who just parrot the opinions they get from the main stream media - they are a lost cause.
I disagree that it is “impossible” for K-12 education to be politically neutral. Hard to convince many people, yes, but impossible? No.
To me it is essential for “public” school to be politically neutral. If/when it is not neutral then it is not a government entity operating for ALL THE PEOPLE, just for some of the people and trying to force the others into its biased mold.
In order to truly represent ALL the people it HAS TO BE neutral.
The fact that it currently is not is symptomatic of the moral failure of public school.
On the other hand, I agree with you that the money (100% of taxpayers K-12 support) should “follow the child. I would do it with vouchers issued to parents of K-12 students twice a year, with the parents able to endorse the vouchers to any K-12 school of their choice - public, private, secular or religious based.
However, while my view is that “public” schools ought to be required to be politically neutral, as I set forth above, no private school should be expected, or required to deny their own, private views on many matters. THAT is the benefit and difference of being private - you may not appeal to everyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.