By Anna Sallas.
In June 2025, the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor recognized parents’ First Amendment right to opt their children out of certain public-school curricula. In doing so, the Court significantly broadened the First Amendment’s free exercise precedent and expanded parental control over public education.
Despite Mahmoud’s potentially wide-reaching impact on public school curricula, the Court left the boundaries of parental control undefined. While unfettered parental control carries nationwide implications, it is unlikely to significantly affect Arizona public school curricula.
The Recent Mahmoud Decision
Mahmoud arose out of Maryland, where the Montgomery County Board of Education incorporated LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks in their public school curricula. These books, approved for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, featured LGBTQ+ characters and promoted messages of inclusion, kindness, and respect.
Although the Board’s original policy permitted parental opt-outs for LGBTQ+-inclusive instruction, it later rescinded this policy in response to the administrative burden created by student absences from testable content. Following this rescission, some parents in the Montgomery County Public Schools sued the Board. The suit alleged that including LGBTQ+-inclusive texts without providing parents with prior notice or religious opt-outs violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the storybooks endorsed values contrary to certain beliefs, including those of some parents. Coupled with the rescission of the opt-out policy, the Board substantially interfered with the parents’ ability to instill their preferred beliefs in their children. The Court held that this interference unconstitutionally burdened the parents’ religious exercise and violated the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s Foundation for Parental Rights
The Mahmoud Court drew on precedent established in seminal parental rights cases. One of the first cases to establish the parental right to direct children’s education was Pierce v. Society of Sisters. In Pierce, the Supreme Court struck down an Oregon law requiring parents to send their children to public school. The Supreme Court based their decision upon the right of parents to “direct the upbringing and education of [their] children.”
The Court also relied heavily on Wisconsin v. Yoder, which held that a Wisconsin law mandating compulsory education beyond the eighth grade unconstitutionally burdened the Amish community. In deciding Yoder, the Supreme Court reasoned that laws threatening parents’ fundamental right to “direct the religious upbringing of their children” pose an “objective danger” to the parents’ First Amendment free exercise rights.
Applying Yoder to Mahmoud, the Supreme Court concluded that withholding parental opt-outs for LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks substantially interfered with the children’s religious upbringing. This interference presented a comparable “objective danger” threatening the parents’ free exercise of religion.
Criticism of the Court’s Expansive Ruling
While religious and parental rights advocates have hailed Mahmoud as a “victory for parental rights and religious liberty,” civil rights and public education advocates express concern over Mahmoud’s indeterminate scope. The dissenting justices echoed this concern, warning that Mahmoud imposed “no meaningful limits” on parental opt-outs. Such broad opt-out rights risk overburdening public school administrations. This may result in teachers adjusting homework assignments and exams to cater to opted-out students. Consequently, public schools may decide to entirely “strip their curricula of content that risks generating religious objections.” By potentially discouraging exposure to diverse content, this chilling effect “threatens the very essence of public education” in fostering openness and inclusivity.
Opt-Out Rights: Arizona Already Goes Further
Although Mahmoud portends sweeping implications across the nation, the impact on Arizona public schools will likely be minimal. In contrast to Mahmoud’s emphasis on religious opt-out rights, Arizona law provides broader opt-out provisions.
For example, A.R.S. §§ 15-102(A)(4) & (8)(c) provide opt-out rights for parents objecting to “any learning material or activity” that is “harmful.” Arizona law goes beyond the scope of Mahmoud’s religious opt-outs, defining “harmful” materials as those that conflict with parents’ “beliefs or practices concerning sex” or morality. A.R.S. § 15-113(E)(1) further expands the scope of parental opt-out rights to include curricula containing “sexual content, violent content or profane or vulgar language.”
Therefore, while the undefined scope of parental opt-out rights may have nationwide impact, the effect on Arizona public education is likely minimal. At most, Mahmoud may heighten parental awareness of Arizona’s already broad opt-out provisions, potentially motivating greater exercise of these rights. However, the decision does not extend parental control over public education beyond what Arizona law already provides.
Anna Sallas is a 2L at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. She was named a Willard H. Pedrick Scholar for Fall 2024 and is an active member of the Chicano Latino Law Student Association. Anna is a graduate of Northern Arizona University with a B.A. in Philosophy, Politics, and Law. Prior to law school, Anna interned at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, where she supported litigation preparation by conducting research on election law and clemency matters. She also served as a policy intern at the Arizona State Senate, drafting bill summaries, researching legislation to brief state senators, and conducting stakeholder outreach. Anna has additional experience as a teaching assistant for World Philosophy at Northern Arizona University.