The Supreme Court heard the oral arguments for Mahmoud v. Taylor on April 22.
The case concerns the right of MCPS parents and children to opt out of lessons that use books containing LGBTQ+ themes.
MCPS added LGBTQ-related books to the elementary school supplementary curriculum during the 2022-2023 school year. At first, officials notified parents and allowed them to decide whether to withhold their children from lessons. However, in March 2023, MCPS announced that participation in lessons on books with LGBTQ+ themes would no longer be optional — initially providing no context, but later citing concerns about high rates of absenteeism and the potential for discrimination against students with LGBTQ+ families.
In May 2023, parents Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat sued MCPS for infringing upon their religious rights. In the case, initially called Mahmoud v. McKnight, the district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, officially ruling that parents couldn’t opt their children out of the lessons. Subsequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the ruling, with the Supreme Court eventually agreeing to hear the case. After the oral arguments took place in April 2025, judicial experts began speculating that the court might rule in favor of the parents.
The LGBTQ+ community has seen some policy changes during the Trump administration. On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order declaring that the federal government would only recognize the male and female genders. Additionally, Trump signed an executive order banning transgender individuals from women’s sports on Feb 5. On May 6, the Supreme Court upheld Trump’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the military.
Lauren Pruitt is the legal director for FreeState Justice — a nonprofit organization focused on improving the well-being of LGBTQ+ people in Maryland. Pruitt said she’s concerned that the possibility of a decision against the lessons could be a setback for LGBTQ+ rights and the fundamental right to an education.
“This case could lead to a situation where schools are disincentivized from including books with LGBTQ+ characters in their curriculum,” Pruitt said. “A ruling which is ostensibly in support of the religious liberty of parents may ironically trample the rights of the very child those parents claim they are seeking to protect.”
Conservatives hold a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, which can tend to support religious rights. SCOTUSBlog reporter Amy Howe noted that the court appeared sympathetic to the petitioners during the oral arguments. Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh both demonstrated doubt about the respondents’ claims that the opt-out policy wasn’t feasible, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that students who encounter the books’ contents are not experiencing coercion.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — the organization representing the parents — argued that MCPS was violating the parents’ right to educate their children in a manner consistent with their religion. In a press release, Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, asked the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the petitioners.
“In this country, we’ve always trusted families to decide when their kids are ready for sensitive topics,” Baxter said. “Children shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades and gender transitions without their parents’ permission.”
In 2024, MCPS removed two books with LGBTQ+ content — “Pride Puppy” and “My Rainbow” — from its pre-kindergarten and second-grade curriculum. Lawyers subjected these two books to scrutiny during the oral arguments of the case.
Social justice teacher Sheryl Freedman said she worries about the impact the ruling could have on some of Whitman’s social justice initiatives.
“They’re framing it as a matter of religious freedom,” Freedman said. “There are some topics we discuss in OneWhitman that could potentially fall under the heading of that.”
Though the petitioners said they didn’t intend to ban the books, some argue that an opt-out policy is censorship regardless.
Pruitt expressed concerns about the potential consequences of a ruling in favor of the petitioners and the precedent it could set.
“At the extreme end, the ruling could be used to bolster attempts to classify LGBTQ+ content as obscene,” Pruitt said. “The parents are implicitly arguing that such content violates their moral standards and embolden state lawmakers who wish to remove all references and acknowledgment of the LGBTQ+ community in our educational institutions.”
