PRESS RELEASE: Defense of Freedom Institute Fights for Parental Rights and Religious Freedom in Brief Filed with U.S. Supreme Court in Mahmoud v. Taylor

WASHINGTON—Today, the Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies (DFI) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Mahmoud v. Taylor, urging the Court to uphold parental rights and protect the First Amendment in public schools. The case challenges a Maryland board of education’s refusal to provide a notice to parents allowing them to opt their children out of classroom readings of inappropriately sexual storybooks as part of the school system’s English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum.  The Montgomery County Board of Education allowed parents to opt their children out of those classroom readings for the 2022-23 school year—the first in which the storybooks were used—but then later took away the option for the 2023-24 school year.

The brief, supported by a coalition of current and former educators with over 160 years of combined experience in public schools across ten states, argues that the Board’s policy infringes on the constitutional right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

“Teaching children the tolerance and respect for others that are required in a civil society is different from indoctrinating them with new ideologies that run counter to their families’ religious beliefs,” the brief explains.

For example, the storybook series in question includes a book called Pride Puppy!, an alphabet book meant for children as young as pre-K. The book tells the story of a puppy lost during a pride parade, introducing young readers to terms like “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” and “leather.”

DFI’s key arguments from the brief include the following:

• First Amendment Violations: The Board’s policy undermines religious freedom by compelling children to engage with ideologically charged sex-related materials against their parents’ wishes.
  
• Administrative Burden is Self-Imposed: Contrary to the Board’s claims, implementing a “notice and opt-out” process is standard practice in K-12 education and does not present significant administrative challenges.
  
• Misclassification of Curriculum: The brief asserts that the Board deceptively included LGBTQ+ themed books in the ELA curriculum to sidestep Maryland’s mandatory opt-out law, which applies to the human sexuality curriculum.

The brief calls on the Supreme Court to reaffirm the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and reinforce the principle that public schools cannot override parents’ rights by claiming “administrative burden.”

“Bureaucratic concerns about administrative workloads should not justify government infringement on the right of parents to raise their young children in their religious faith. This is particularly true where, like here, the burden on school staff results directly from the Board’s desire to foist on young children a hugely controversial set of books that large numbers of parents want to protect children from,” said DFI Senior Counsel Don Daugherty. “The Court has a critical opportunity to restore balance and protect families’ deeply held religious beliefs. In addition, Montgomery County families may want to reconsider who is running their public schools.”

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on April 22, 2025.

To read the full brief, click here.