Supreme Court Sides With Parents' Religious Rights in Landmark Education Case

Today marks a historic victory for religious liberty and parental rights as the Supreme Court delivered a resounding 6-3 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, affirming that parents have the constitutional right to protect their children from classroom instruction that conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs. The ACLJ submitted a powerful amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case defending the fundamental right of parents to direct the religious and moral upbringing of their children. The Supreme Court utilized reasoning that we provided in our amicus brief directly in its opinion.

The Court Decision

Today’s decision vindicates the position we have long championed: The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause provides robust protection for parents seeking to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, parents from diverse religious backgrounds (including Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths) in Montgomery County, Maryland, challenged the school board’s mandate forcing their children to engage with content that directly contradicted their sincere religious convictions. When these faithful parents requested simple accommodations – such as notice when these materials would be used and the ability to excuse their children from such instruction – the school board callously denied their requests, claiming administrative convenience trumped constitutional rights.

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito delivered a masterful opinion that reaffirmed bedrock principles of religious freedom. The Court recognized what should be obvious to any defender of the Constitution: Parents have the fundamental right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, and government schools cannot substantially interfere with the religious development of students.

The Fourth Circuit wrongly concluded that “mere exposure” to ideas contrary to parents’ religious beliefs doesn’t burden religious exercise. According to the lower court, unless the school “coerces” students to change their beliefs or act contrary to their faith, there’s no Free Exercise violation. As the ACLJ argued in our amicus brief, this fundamentally mischaracterizes what is happening in these classrooms.

This is not about exposure – this is about teaching. There is a world of difference between a child encountering diverse viewpoints in passing and being systematically instructed in values that directly contradict their parents’ religious beliefs. As we explain in our brief, education isn’t about “mere exposure” – it’s about teaching and inculcating values. The entire purpose of education is to change students – to shape their understanding, beliefs, and character.

The Supreme Court saw through the school board’s attempts to minimize their coercive actions as mere “exposure to objectionable ideas.” As Justice Alito noted, these materials “unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint” and create “pressure to conform” to beliefs that are “hostile” to the parents’ religious convictions. This goes far beyond neutral education – it represents government indoctrination that violates the Free Exercise Clause.

The Court properly applied the landmark decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder, rejecting lower courts’ attempts to limit that precedent to its specific facts. The principle established in Yoder – that the government cannot impose educational requirements that pose “a very real threat of undermining” parental religious instruction – applies with full force to public school curricula that directly contradict parents’ faith-based teachings.

The Court also rejected the school board’s weak arguments that this case involved merely “internal affairs” or that parents could simply choose private schooling. As the majority correctly noted, public education involves “direct, coercive interactions between the State and its young residents,” and the government cannot condition public benefits on parents surrendering their religious rights.

The Supreme Court’s Direct Reliance on the ACLJ’s Brief

The ACLJ’s amicus brief emphasized several crucial points that appear throughout the Court’s opinion:

• The fundamental nature of parental rights in directing children’s religious education
• The coercive nature of mandatory classroom instruction that contradicts religious beliefs
• The inadequacy of “teach your values at home” as a constitutional remedy
• The government’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodations for religious exercise

The majority opinion reflects many of the constitutional principles we advocated. In particular, a portion of the Supreme Court’s opinion directly echoes language from our amicus brief. We said:

As this Court observed,

Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary. . . . The State exerts great authority and coercive power through mandatory attendance requirements, and because of the students’ emulation of teachers as role models and the children’s susceptibility to peer pressure.

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 584 (1987) (citations omitted). See also Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592 (1992) (“As we have observed before, there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools”) (and cases cited). While the Establishment Clause analysis articulated in these and many other school cases no longer governs, the Court’s observations about the reality of the school environment still hold true.

The Supreme Court’s language directly mirrors ours:

In other contexts, we have recognized the potentially coercive nature of classroom instruction of this kind. “The State exerts great authority and coercive power through” public schools “because of the students’ emulation of teachers as role models and the children’s susceptibility to peer pressure.” Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578, 584 (1987); see also Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 592 (1992) (“[T]here are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools”).

As you can see, the Supreme Court directly pulled from the language of our brief and relied on our argument.

Standing Strong for Faith and Freedom

Today’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor represents more than a legal victory – it’s an affirmation that in America, parents remain the primary educators of their children, especially in matters of faith and morality. The Supreme Court has reminded government officials that they serve families, not the other way around.

While we celebrate this tremendous victory, the fight for religious freedom in education is far from over. School boards across America continue to push ideological agendas that trample on the rights of faithful families. The ACLJ stands ready to defend parents wherever and whenever their constitutional rights are threatened.