On June 27, 2025, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of parents from diverse religious backgrounds seeking to opt out of instruction involving LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks.  This case is referred to as Mahmoud v. Taylor or simply Mahmoud. 

Mahmoud involved Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, which had adopted a curriculum that included content about gender identity and sexuality, including books about transgender individuals and same-sex marriages. The district’s governing board initially allowed parents to opt out of lessons involving these materials on religious grounds. However, the governing board subsequently changed its policy and no longer permitted parents to opt their children out of content that did not align with their religious beliefs—arguing that the change of policy was due to the difficulty of administering opt-outs and promoted the district’s interest in teaching students diversity. 

The books were selected by the board through its “Critical Selection Repertoire.”  The process required reviewers to ask questions about the materials under review, such as: “Is heteronormativity reinforced or disrupted?”; “Is cisnormativity reinforced or disrupted?”; and “Are power hierarchies that uphold the dominant culture reinforced or disrupted?”

Furthermore, the Board in Mahmoud provided teachers with a guidance document suggesting how they might respond to student inquiries regarding the themes presented in the books. For example, if a student claimed that a character “can’t be a boy if he was born a girl,” teachers were encouraged to respond: “That comment is hurtful.” And if a student asked “What’s transgender?”, teachers were directed to explain: “When we’re born, people make a guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re wrong.” The district’s documented guidance encouraged its teachers to “[d]isrupt the either/or thinking” of their students. 

The Court found that the use of the books and the evidence of the Board’s intent for the instruction went beyond “mere exposure” and crossed into an active reinforcement of one view and reprimanding of another.  Essentially, the instruction was intended to change the minds of very young student on matters within the scope of their parents “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Due to compulsory education laws in Maryland, the plaintiffs were impermissibly forced to make a choice between a public education and private religious education, if not provided the opportunity to opt out of lessons that conflicted with religious beliefs and teachings in the home.

Mahmoud did not provide an absolute right of parents to opt their children out of any/all instruction based on religious beliefs. Rather, the Supreme Court stated that the question is “fact-intensive” and depends on factors such as (1) the specific religious beliefs and practices asserted, (2) the specific nature of the educational requirement or curriculum feature at issue, (3) the age of the child given the instruction, (4) the context of the instruction, and (5) whether the material is presented in a neutral manner or a manner hostile to religious viewpoints.

1. What was the Mahmoud v. Taylor decision, and how does it affect parental rights?

On June 27, 2025, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of parents from diverse religious backgrounds seeking to opt out of instruction involving LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks.  This case is referred to as Mahmoud v. Taylor or simply Mahmoud. 

Mahmoud involved Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, which had adopted a curriculum that included content about gender identity and sexuality, including books about transgender individuals and same-sex marriages.  The Court found that the use of the books and the evidence of the Board’s intent for the instruction went beyond “mere exposure” and was intended to change the minds of very young student on matters within the scope of their parents “sincerely held religious beliefs.” 

Mahmoud did not provide an absolute right of parents to opt their children out of any/all instruction based on religious beliefs. Rather, the Supreme Court stated that the question is “fact-intensive” and depends on factors such as (1) the specific religious beliefs and practices asserted, (2) the specific nature of the educational requirement or curriculum feature at issue, (3) the age of the child given the instruction, (4) the context of the instruction, and (5) whether the material is presented in a neutral manner or a manner hostile to religious viewpoints.

A more detailed summary of Mahmoud is in the Appendix, below.

2. What changes will be made by CVUSD in response to Mahmoud?

The District is implementing a process to consider parents/guardian requests to opt student out of specific instruction.

Education Code section 51938(b)(4) already requires the District to provide notice of, and allows parents to excuse their child from, Comprehensive Sexual Health Education and HIV/AIDS Prevention instruction.

3. Has the District reviewed its curriculum to consider other required opt-outs?

The District has conducted a review of curriculum and supplemental materials and has not identified any other curriculum that appears to fall within Mahmoud’s notice and opt out requirements.

4. Can parents review District curriculum and request that their children be excused from certain instruction?

Under Education Code sections 49091.10(a) and 51101, a parent or guardian has the right to inspect curriculum materials of the classes in which their child/children is/are enrolled. 

If, after reviewing the materials, a parent/guardian identifies specific materials or lessons that may interfere with their ability to direct the upbringing of their child relative to sincerely held religious beliefs, they may complete the District’s Parent/Guardian Request for Student Opt-Out of Specific Instructional Content form. 

This form allows the parent to identify materials and explain why the materials might undermine the religious beliefs and practices they wish to instill. Specific requests will then be evaluated by District administrators in accordance with the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Mahmoud, and all opt-outs deemed appropriate under those standards will be honored.

5. Do parents have a right to exempt their children from comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention instruction?

Education Code section 51938(b)(4) allows parents to excuse their child from such instruction for the school year.   After a parent provides notice to the District of their desire to excuse their children from this instruction, the District will ensure that the student(s) do not participate in any class, instruction or activity related to comprehensive sexual education and HIV/AIDS prevention.  CVUSD Link to Sexual Health Opt Out Form (Grades 7&8).

6. Do parents have the right to exempt their children from participating in any anonymous, voluntary, and confidential test, questionnaire, or survey on pupil health behaviors and risks?

Education Code section 51938(c) allows parents to excuse their child from any anonymous, voluntary, and confidential test, questionnaire, or survey on pupil health behaviors and risks.

7. Do parents have the right to exempt their children from the administration of any test, questionnaire, survey, examination or evaluation containing any questions or items relative to their children, or their personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, or religion?

Under Education Code section 51513, such tests, questionnaires, surveys, examinations or evaluations (referred to generally as a "survey") can only be administered to a pupil if a parent is given notification that the survey is to be administered and the parent gives written permission for the pupil to take the survey.  In other words, this is not an "opt out" issue -- parents must "opt in" to such surveys.

8. Do parents have the right to exempt their children from the administration of any test, examination, or assessment as part of a statewide pupil assessment program relative to their child, or the parent's personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, or religion, or any question designed to evaluate personal behavioral characteristics, including, but not limited to, honesty, integrity, sociability, or self-esteem

Education Code section 60614 prohibits any statewide survey on these subjects and there is, therefore, no need to provide an opt-out to the District.  The District does not administer any such statewide tests, examination or assessments.

9. Do parents have the right to exempt their children from any survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals: (1) political affiliations or beliefs of the student or parent, (2) mental or psychological problems of the student or their family, (3) sexual behavior or attitudes, (4) illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior, (5) critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships, (6) legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as lawyers, physicians, and ministers, (7) religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student(s) or parent, or (8) income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility or participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program).

According to federal law (20 U.S.C. § 1232h), a parental opt-in is required for participation in such surveys, analyses or evaluations.  In other words, this is not an "opt out" issue -- parents must "opt in" to such surveys, analyses or evaluations.

10. Do parents have the right to exempt their children from instruction that includes "objectionable materials"?

In Mahmoud, the Supreme Court held that parents should have the right to opt their children out of instruction when that instruction, “poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,” described elsewhere as parents’ right “to direct the religious upbringing of their children.” Importantly, however, Mahmoud did not provide an absolute right of parents to opt their children out of instruction based on religious beliefs. Rather, the Supreme Court stated that the question is “fact-intensive” and depends on factors such as (1) the specific religious beliefs and practices asserted, (2) the specific nature of the educational requirement or curriculum feature at issue, (3) the age of the child given the instruction, (4) the context of the instruction, and (5) whether the material is presented in a neutral manner or a manner hostile to religious viewpoints.

The District has conducted a review of curriculum and supplemental materials and has not identified any curriculum, which does not already have a notice and opt-in or opt-out, that appears to fall within Mahmoud’s notice and opt out requirements.  

Nevertheless, under California law, Education Code sections 49091.10(a) and 51101, a parent or guardian has the right to inspect curriculum materials of the classes in which their child is enrolled. The District invites parents to make such a request for any class for which they might have a concern. 

If, after reviewing the materials, there are specific materials or lessons that a parent believes may interfere with their ability to direct the upbringing of their child in their sincerely held religious beliefs, they may complete the District’s Parent/Guardian Request for Student Opt-Out of Specific Instructional Content form.  This form allows parents to identify those materials and explain why those materials might undermine the religious beliefs and practices they wish to instill. Specific requests will then be evaluated by the District in accordance with the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Mahmoud, and all opt-outs deemed appropriate under those standards will be honored.

11. Do parents have the right to prohibit their children from being referred to or provided access to any third-party mental health counselor or social worker?

Parents have the right to prohibit the children under 12 years of age from being referred to or provided access to any third-party mental health counselor or social worker.  For students 12 years of age and older, the District is required to comply with California law, such as Health and Safety Code section 124260 and Family Code section 6924, which allow minors age 12 or older to consent to certain outpatient mental health treatment.

12. Do parents have the right to prohibit their children from being referred to or provided access to an abortion provider?

The District does not refer students to “abortion providers.”