On April 22, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding parental rights and religious freedom in the case Mahmoud v. Taylor. This case will determine whether public schools infringe on parents’ religious freedom by requiring elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality without parental notice or the ability to opt out, despite religious objections.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioners in October 2024, highlighting:
- The fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
- The importance of religious liberty in ensuring that parents are not forced to choose between their faith and their children’s schooling.
- The role of the Free Exercise Clause in protecting parents from government-compelled ideological indoctrination.
- The necessity of ensuring that public schools respect the diverse religious beliefs of families in their communities.
What is the gender ideology indoctrination case about?
Montgomery County Board of Education policy:
In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland introduced a new policy requiring the use of storybooks in elementary school classrooms that promote gender and sexuality inclusivity and ideologies. Initially, the school board indicated that parents could opt their children out of the curriculum based on religious or moral objections. However, the board later reversed its position, deciding that parents would no longer be notified when these materials were used in class and would not be allowed to opt their children out.
Challenging the school policy:
A multi-faith coalition of more than 300 religious parents, including Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians, challenged this policy in court with the help of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The parents argued that the policy violated their First Amendment rights by compelling their children to be exposed to teachings contradicting their deeply held religious beliefs.
Lower courts sided with the school district, ruling that parents do not have the right to opt their children out of public school curricula they find objectionable and burdensome to their religion.
What legal arguments are being made in this gender ideology indoctrination case?
The petitioners:
The petitioners, led by parents in Montgomery County, argue that the school district’s policy infringes on their constitutional rights in multiple ways:
- Parental rights: Under Supreme Court precedent, parents have a fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children, including shielding them from teachings that contradict their deeply held religious beliefs.
- Religious liberty: The school’s policy places an unconstitutional burden on parents, forcing them to either accept teachings that violate their faith or choose to remove their children from public school altogether.
- Free speech and Free Exercise: The refusal to accommodate religious opt-outs constitutes government-compelled speech and violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The respondents:
The respondents, Montgomery County school officials, argue that the policy serves a compelling government interest by supporting “diversity and inclusion” and that allowing opt-outs could undermine these educational goals. They also claim that public education should be neutral and that parents cannot demand exemptions from “generally applicable” curriculum requirements.
The ERLC’s brief:
The ERLC’s brief urges the Supreme Court to protect parental rights and uphold religious liberty, arguing that public schools should not have the power to impose ideological viewpoints on children against their parents’ wishes. The brief emphasizes that parents—not school officials—are the primary educators of their children and must be free to guide their moral and religious development.
What is at stake in the gender ideology indoctrination case?
A ruling in favor of parents:
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case presents an opportunity to protect parental rights in their children’s public education by ensuring that families can opt their children out of lessons that conflict with their religious beliefs. Such a ruling could also set a precedent for greater accommodations for religious families in public schools nationwide.
A ruling in favor of Montgomery County Board of Education:
Conversely, a ruling favoring the Montgomery County Board of Education could weaken legal protection for parents and establish a dangerous precedent in which public schools can compel exposure to controversial materials without parental notice and consent. This could impact families across the country.
What happens next in the gender ideology indoctrination case?
A decision is expected in June 2025. The ERLC will analyze both the oral arguments and the final ruling while actively advocating for religious liberty, parental rights, and protecting children from harmful ideologies in public schools.
Why does this gender ideology indoctrination case matter to Southern Baptists?
At the 2024 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting, messengers passed a resolution “On the God-Given Rights and Responsibilities of Parents.” A ruling in favor of the petitioners would align with Southern Baptist’s call for the state to ensure “that parents have the freedom to make decisions regarding the upbringing, education, and healthcare of their children without undue interference, recognizing that parents are the primary arbiters of a child’s moral and spiritual formation.”
