Supreme Court considers parents’ challenge to Montgomery County opt‑out removal for LGBTQ‑inclusive children’s books

Legislative counsel Bethany Champs briefed the House Education Committee on May 20 about Mahmood v. Taylor, a case in which parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, sued after the county school board removed a previously available opt‑out for a set of LGBTQ‑inclusive children’s books used in early elementary classrooms.

Champs, legislative counsel in the Office of Legislative Council, told the committee the books were adopted through ordinary curriculum processes and were described by the Fourth Circuit as “storybooks” used to teach basic reading concepts. Initially the district allowed year‑to‑year opt‑outs; the board later removed the opt‑out option and several parents sought a preliminary injunction to restore it while litigation proceeded.

Why it matters: the dispute frames how the Free Exercise Clause applies to public school curricula and whether the absence of an opt‑out imposes a cognizable burden on religious exercise for parents and children. The Fourth Circuit denied a preliminary injunction for lack of a developed record showing coercion; the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard argument April 22.

Champs summarized the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning: courts assessing free‑exercise claims must determine whether government action coerces a violation of religious beliefs. The Fourth Circuit found the record “devoid of any information” showing how frequently teachers used the books, how they were used in specific classrooms, or whether any child had been compelled to act or believe contrary to religious tenets. "The record was not developed enough to show that the age of the students alone would amount to coercion," she said, summarizing the opinion.

The parents framed their request narrowly, Champs said: they sought only an opt‑out from classroom instruction using the storybooks and argued the removal of opt‑outs coerced children and families in violation of their free‑exercise rights. The Fourth Circuit concluded plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because they had not demonstrated a cognizable burden; the court therefore denied the preliminary injunction.

Champs noted the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion could be limited to the preliminary injunction question or signal broader changes in free‑exercise doctrine. She said commentary suggests the conservative majority might be sympathetic to the parents’ claims, but the magnitude of any ruling — whether narrow or sweeping — is uncertain.

Committee members asked about practical classroom implications, whether teachers would need to develop alternative lessons for opt‑out students and how broad a ruling might affect other curriculum decisions; Champs reiterated that the Fourth Circuit’s decision rested on the limited record presented at the preliminary‑injunction stage and that many factual details (how teachers actually used individual books in classrooms) were not in the record.

The case raises questions about how courts will treat claims that exposure to ideas in the classroom — absent evidence of compulsion — imposes a constitutional burden. The Supreme Court’s decision could affect opt‑out practices around the country depending on how broadly the justices rule; Champs said the committee’s counsel office will provide deeper analysis after an opinion is issued.