In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on Mahmoud v. Taylor, a pivotal case involving parental rights to opt their children out of public school curricula featuring LGBTQ-themed materials. Early indications suggest the Court’s conservative majority will rule in favor of parents, reinforcing their authority over their children’s education. This case, stemming from Montgomery County, Maryland, challenges the school board’s removal of opt-out options for lessons on sexuality and gender identity, impacting children as young as three. A ruling for parents would reaffirm a long-standing constitutional tradition prioritizing parental rights—a tradition that should extend to all parents, not just those with religious objections.
The Court’s history on parental rights is clear and robust. In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the Court recognized parents’ liberty to “establish a home and bring up children” under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) solidified this, affirming parents’ rights to direct their children’s education by choosing private schools. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) went further, ruling that parents’ “fundamental interest” in guiding their children’s religious and educational upbringing trumps state interests, allowing Amish parents to opt out of compulsory schooling. Troxel v. Granville (2000) underscored that the “liberty interest” in the care, custody, and control of children is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.” These precedents demonstrate that parental rights are nearly absolute, rooted in the Constitution’s protection of family autonomy, and have been overwhelmingly upheld.
This case should not hinge on religious objections alone. All parents, regardless of faith, must have the right to opt out of curricula they deem harmful. Montgomery County’s inclusion of books like My Rainbow, depicting transgender experiences, raises serious concerns. These materials often diverge from the Judeo-Christian values that shaped America’s founding—values centered on traditional families with a mother and father as the bedrock of society. Introducing young children to concepts of gender fluidity can sow confusion, particularly when over 90% of gender dysphoria cases resolve naturally by puberty, according to studies like those cited by the American Psychiatric Association. Encouraging children who do not struggle with gender identity to experiment risks leading them down a painful path of mental health challenges, including depression and anxiety, which studies show afflict many who pursue gender transition. Schools must protect children’s innocence, not expose them to ideologies that normalize a serious mental illness.
The broader issue is the state overstepping into the sacred domain of family. Public schools should not be platforms for promoting non-traditional family structures or comprehensive sex education that conflicts with foundational values. Materials on LGBTQ identities often present these as normative, ignoring the traditional family model that has sustained societies for centuries. This is not education—it’s indoctrination. Parents, not schools, should decide when and how to introduce such topics, ensuring their children’s moral and emotional well-being.
A favorable SCOTUS ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor is a critical lifeline for Californians, who are suffering under severe parental rights violations imposed by state laws like the California Healthy Youth Act and FAIR Education Act. These laws force-feed children LGBTQ-related materials in subjects like social studies and history, banning parents from opting out. This prohibition—mandating exposure to gender and sexual orientation topics without guaranteed notification—strips parents of their constitutional authority to guide their children’s upbringing. Shockingly, these policies defy the will of 80% of Californians, who polls show oppose such curricula without parental consent. The SCOTUS ruling could restore these fundamental rights, ensuring parents, not the state, decide what their children are exposed to, safeguarding their innocence and family values against California’s overreach.
The Supreme Court’s likely ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor will be a victory for parental rights, but Congress must go further.
Let’s call for a federal ban on comprehensive sex education and LGBTQ non-traditional family materials in public schools. These topics belong in private homes, where parents and guardians can choose supplemental educational materials aligned with their values. Public classrooms must remain neutral, focusing on core academics, not ideological agendas. Let’s protect our children’s innocence and preserve the family’s rightful role in their upbringing.
