Industry & Advocacy News
April 18, 2025
On April 9, the Authors Guild, along with Penguin Random House and the Educational Book & Media Association, submitted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor. This case centers on parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who claim that exposing their children to books featuring LGBTQIA+ characters and themes in public school classrooms violates their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The petitioners are seeking the ability to opt their children out of reading or listening to these books in class, arguing that mere exposure to such content constitutes religious indoctrination.
The brief argues that exposure to books featuring diverse characters and families does not constitute religious indoctrination or violate anyone’s free exercise of religion. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment 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 books at the heart of this case tell stories that reflect the diversity of human experience:
In our brief, we argue that these books serve important educational purposes by providing both “mirrors” for children to see themselves and “windows” into experiences different from their own.
Requiring opt-out procedures in situations like these—where schools would need to provide advance notice and allow certain students to leave the classroom when these books are read—would effectively result in widespread censorship.
In fact, Montgomery County public schools previously offered such opt-outs, but the process proved to be “administratively infeasible.” Unlike discrete units like sex education, these books are integrated throughout the language arts curriculum, with teachers having flexibility in which books to read and when. Moreover, the curriculum encourages students to choose books for their own individual reading or to be read aloud in class.
This means there is “simply no practical way to offer advance notice and an opt-out mechanism” in these circumstances. Schools are more likely to remove the books entirely rather than implement such a complex system, which would dramatically limit the literature available to all students.
“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,” the brief states. It concludes with a powerful comparison: “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.”
This case represents a critical moment in the ongoing national conversation about book access, free speech, and the role of public education in exposing children to diverse perspectives and experiences.
Read the full amicus brief (PDF).
Read more about our book ban advocacy.
Your gift will help sustain our efforts to support working writers and preserve the literary profession.
Statements
Trump Administration’s Interference in Artistic and Literary Expression Is Anti-American and Anti-Democratic
May 9, 2025
Authors Guild Condemns Pentagon's Sweeping Book Bans Across Military Institutions
April 16, 2025
3 Ways to Stand Up for Free Speech and Libraries
April 4, 2025
