What Mahmoud v Tayler Means for Maryland

The Mahmoud v Tayler Supreme Court Precedent 606 U.S. (2025) clarified numerous issues that parents nationwide have faced: sending their children to public schools and those schools violating their sincerely-held religious beliefs that there are only two genders. Maryland's forced curriculum is filled with pornographic and sexual contexts that violate the religious beliefs of parents.

Montgomery County parents filed a lawsuit against the Montgomery County Board of Education and Maryland State Board of Education regarding the Maryland State Health Curriculum and asking that they opt-out their children from the state mandated health curriculum and forced-attendance in courses which promote LGBTQ and sexual orientation.

In review of this case, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the record is too "threadbare" to demonstrate a burden on religious exercise, and therefore un-convincing. 102 F. 4th 191, 209 and the Federal District Court and the 4th Circuit dismissed the Parent's complaint.

The United States Supreme Court took up this case to resolve the enormous pressure and hardship that all parents from diverse religious backgrounds not only face in Maryland, but Nationwide.

The Supreme Court found it abhorrent that the Fourth Circuit faulted the parents for failing to make specific allegations describing how the books "are actually being used in classrooms." Id., at 213.

The Supreme Court cleaned up Federal District Court and the Fourth Circuit's mess and held: "But when a deprivation of First Amendment rights is at stake, a plaintiff need not wait for the damage to occur before filing suit. Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. 149, 158.

To evaluate the plaintiffs' claims, the Court need only to decide whether—if teachers act according to the clear and undisputed instructions of the Board—a burden on religious exercise will occur. Pp. 31-32.

However, public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot "condition" its "availability" on the parents' willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. 449, 462.

Moreover, given that education is compulsory in Maryland, the parents are not being asked simply to forgo a public benefit.

Parents have an obligation, enforceable by fine or imprisonment, to send their children to public school unless they find an adequate substitute they can afford. §§7-301(a)(3), (e).

It is by no means a solution to say that parents remain free to place their children in private school or to educate them at home.

The parents in Barnette and Yoder were similarly capable of teaching their religious values "at home," but that made no difference in the First Amendment analysis in those cases.

It is similarly unconvincing to suggest that the parents could have challenged the educational requirements via the democratic process.

The parents tried and failed to obtain legislative change, and had every right to resort to judicial review to protect their rights. Pp. 32-35.

Having concluded that the Board's policy burdens the parents' right to the free exercise of religion, the Court turns to the question whether that burden is constitutionally permitted. Pp. 35-40.

In most circumstances, the government is generally free to place incidental burdens on religious exercise so long as it does so pursuant to a neutral policy that is generally applicable. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 878-879.

But when a law imposes a burden of the same character as that in Yoder, as does the challenged Board policy here, strict scrutiny is appropriate regardless of whether the law is neutral or generally applicable. Smith, 494 U. S., at 881. Pp. 35-37."

The Maryland State Board of Education and its State Superintendent may not punish or continue to impose burdens on the local school boards like in the case with Carroll County if those local school boards wish to comply with the Supreme Court's most recent ruling.

In the end, every Maryland School Board must either allow parental opt-out who object to an LGBTQ curriculum or simply follow the science and teach the students simple scientific truths without the sexualization and sexually-explicit content that's not suitable for minors or contrary to religious beliefs.

Fellows & Editors

July 1, 2025 - Copyright DelmarvaPTC.org 

To stay informed, sign up to the Delmarva Parent Teacher Coalition and follow us on facebook to know what's really happening with education in our schools.

All copyright © information provided at no charge under the Fair Use Act and strictly for educational purposes and public awareness.