Statements
July 15, 2025
The Authors Guild is disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor. This 6-3 decision represents a dangerous departure from established precedent and undermines the foundational principles of public education in America.
In November 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland approved several LGBTQ-inclusive children’s books as supplemental curriculum for its language arts program, adding one book for each year from pre-kindergarten through fifth grade. Initially, the schools notified parents before the books were used and accommodated requests to have children excused. However, in March 2023, the school district changed the policy, no longer allowing opt-outs “for any reason”; a school official said the change was made because “individual principals and teachers could not accommodate the growing number of opt-out requests without causing significant disruptions to the classroom environment.”
Three sets of parents—including Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox families—sued Montgomery County’s school board and Superintendent Thomas Taylor, alleging their First Amendment and due process rights were violated. The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction while the case is being litigated, ordering the board to notify parents in advance when these books will be used and allow children to be excused from instruction.
We strongly agree with Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion, which powerfully articulates why this decision is fundamentally flawed. The majority’s central error lies in conflating mere exposure to diverse perspectives with religious indoctrination. As we argued in our amicus brief, exposure to these books does not equal indoctrination. The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals’ right to practice their religion without government interference, but this protection doesn’t extend to shielding children from merely being exposed to ideas that differ from their families’ religious beliefs in a public school setting.
The majority disagreed, claiming that books presenting “acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated” along with other beliefs carry “‘a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs that the parents wish to instill in their children.” But as we noted in our brief: “Reading the Communist Manifesto does not require one to become a Marxist. And no matter the epic poet Homer’s timeless brilliance, reading The Iliad does not compel worship of Zeus.” Simple exposure to different perspectives does not constitute religious coercion.
Justice Sotomayor brilliantly distinguishes this case from Wisconsin v. Yoder, noting the absurdity of the majority’s comparison:
“Reading a storybook that portrays a family as happy at the news of their gay son’s engagement, the majority claims, is equivalent to a law that threatened the very ‘survival of [the] Amish communit[y]’ in the United States. To read that sentence is to refute it.”
The Court’s decision creates an impossible administrative burden that will cripple public education. The majority has ordered an unworkable notice requirement, demanding that schools notify parents “whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way” and provide opt-outs.
The district’s experience here demonstrates exactly why this approach is doomed to fail. Montgomery County public schools previously offered such opt-outs, but the process proved to be “administratively infeasible.” Unlike discrete units such as sex education (where opt-outs are often permitted), these books are integrated throughout the language arts curriculum, allowing teachers flexibility in which books to read and when. The curriculum encourages students to choose books for their own individual reading or to be read aloud in class. There is “simply no practical way to offer advance notice and an opt-out mechanism” in these circumstances.
Justice Sotomayor correctly identifies the fundamental problem with this approach:
“Given the multiplicity of religious beliefs in this country, innumerable themes may be ‘contrary to the religious principles’ that parents ‘wish to instill in their children.’ Under the majority’s test, school administrators will have to become experts in a wide range of religious doctrines in order to predict, in advance, whether a parent may object to a particular text, lesson plan, or school activity as contrary to their religious beliefs.”
The problem is compounded by the majority’s conclusion that even subtle and implicit messages can trigger these obligations.
Most troubling is the chilling effect this ruling will have on public school curricula nationwide. Requiring opt-out procedures in situations like these would effectively result in widespread censorship. Schools are more likely to remove books entirely rather than implement such complex systems, dramatically limiting the literature available to all students. As Justice Sotomayor warns:
“Few school districts will be able to afford costly litigation over opt-out rights or to divert resources to administering impracticable notice and opt-out systems for individual students. The foreseeable result is that some school districts may strip their curricula of content that risks generating religious objections.”
This decision “guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society, ” Justice Sotomayor states.
As we argued in our brief, “The Free Exercise Clause is not a forcefield that permits some public school parents to shield their children from exposure to certain people or ideas.”
Justice Sotomayor further explains:
“Public schools offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. That experience is critical to our nation’s civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.”
The Court has effectively created a new constitutional right for parents to avoid their children’s exposure to any material that might conflict with their religious beliefs, requiring schools to provide “advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs.” This will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools and force courts to become arbiters of educational content decisions that should remain with democratically elected school boards and education professionals.
We stand firmly with Justice Sotomayor’s conclusion:
“Simply being exposed to beliefs contrary to your own does not amount to prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” This decision “constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.”
The majority has transformed religious freedom from a shield protecting individuals from government interference into a sword that can be wielded to exclude others and narrow the educational experience for all students.
We are similarly concerned about the long-term implications of this ruling, which as a practical matter will prove impossible to implement without trampling on the free speech rights of those who wish their children to receive a complete education with wide exposure to material. It undermines both educational excellence and the pluralistic values that make our democracy strong.
Read the court’s decision, including Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion, here (PDF).
Industry & Advocacy News
Massachusetts Right to Read Bill Strengthens Author Protections, Passes Senate
November 21, 2025
Election Day 2025: Voters Consistently Rejected Book Restrictions in School Board Races
November 6, 2025
Authors Guild Victory: Plaintiffs Prevail as Judge Rules READER Act Violated First Amendment
October 24, 2025
