Parents to Supreme Court: Let parents go to court before state takes their children

WASHINGTON – Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief yesterday urging the Supreme Court to open the courthouse doors before the government can tear religious families apart. In International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, Washington state is requiring youth shelters to hide runaway children’s whereabouts from parents when they seek a “gender transition.” A group of parents sued, but lower courts ruled that the threatened harm to their rights was not immediate enough, even as the law is already reshaping how parents raise their own children. 

Becket filed the brief on behalf of Mary and Jeremy Cox, a Catholic couple who know firsthand the heartbreak of having the government take away their child. Their son was removed from their home after they would not refer to him using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biological sex. The Coxes sued, but procedural hurdles kept them from getting a real chance to vindicate their parental rights in court. Although the state soon determined that Mary and Jeremy were fit parents, and the allegations against them were unsubstantiated, their son was never returned home before becoming a legal adult. Their experience shows why parents must be able to defend their rights in court before government intervention tears their family apart for good. 

“We love our son, and we can never get back the years we lost with him or undo the damage that was done to our family,” said Mary and Jeremy Cox. “What we can do is tell our story so that others won’t have to endure the nightmare we did. We pray the Supreme Court will make sure parents like us can get into court to defend their families before it’s too late.” 

For decades, Washington state required shelters to quickly notify parents when a runaway child arrived, including telling them where their child was. An exception allowed shelters to withhold that information if the parents were abusive. In 2023, Washington expanded that exception to runaway children seeking what Washington calls “gender-affirming care,” even when there are no allegations of abuse or neglect. In those cases, youth shelters must withhold the child’s whereabouts from the parents and notify the state instead. Officials can then steer the child toward services that support that transition and delay the child’s return home with no set deadline, which turns a shelter stay into a state-directed separation. 

“This is America in 2026, not the Soviet Union in 1937,” said Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “State officials don’t get to steal children away from loving parents because they disapprove of their beliefs. And parents shouldn’t have to wait until their family is torn apart before they can defend their constitutional rights in court. We’re hopeful the Court will make that crystal clear in this case.”

Washington is now treating loving and fit parents the same as neglectful or abusive parents simply because the state disagrees with their beliefs about human sexuality and gender. Becket is asking the Supreme Court to ensure that parents must be able to go to court before the government inflicts that kind of lasting harm the Cox family endured.

The Supreme Court will hear the case on December 7. The Coxes are represented by Becket, together with attorney Joshua Hershberger in Madison, Indiana.

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson

Washington puts bureaucrats in the parents’ place

For decades, Washington law required youth shelters to quickly notify parents when a runaway child arrived, including telling them where their child was. An exception allowed shelters to withhold that information when contacting the parents could expose the child to abuse. 

In 2023, Washington expanded that exception to runaway children seeking a “gender transition,” even when their parents have not abused or neglected them. In those cases, youth shelters must withhold the child’s whereabouts from the parents and notify the Washington Department of Children, Youth and Families instead. State officials can then steer the child toward services that support that transition and delay the child’s return home with no set deadline. In effect, Washington now treats loving and fit parents the same as neglectful or abusive parents simply because the state disagrees with their beliefs about human sexuality and gender.

Parents are locked out of court 

A group of Washington parents challenged the law, arguing that it threatens their right to raise their children according to their deeply held beliefs about human sexuality and gender. Four of the five families have children who struggle with gender dysphoria, one child has run away before, and some parents say the law has already changed how they discipline and talk with their children—because they fear what could happen if their child runs away. 

But the lower courts did not allow the parents’ challenge to the law to move forward. Instead, they ruled that the parents could not sue because the threat to their families was not immediate enough. The parents asked the Supreme Court to let them challenge the law, arguing that they should be able to go to court before—not after—the government comes between them and their children. 

The Cox family is living proof of what is at stake 

Mary and Jeremy Cox know firsthand the heartbreak of having the government take away their child. The Catholic couple’s son was removed from their home after they did not support his desire to live as a female. Even after officials determined that the Coxes were fit parents, he was never returned to their home before turning 18. 

The Coxes spent years trying to defend their parental and religious freedom rights in court, but procedural hurdles kept them from getting a real chance to vindicate those rights. Washington’s law goes even further: parents get no chance to object before the state keeps their child away from them. Becket’s friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Coxes argues that parents must reach a courtroom before the government can inflict that lasting harm.

Importance to Religious Liberty:

  • Parental Rights: Parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of most religions, and Becket defends the right of parents to guide their own children on such matters. 

Religious parents sue California school district for defying Supreme Court on parental rights

WASHINGTON – Justin and Rose Taylor filed a federal lawsuit yesterday against the Sunnyvale School District for denying them the right to receive notice and to opt their children out of controversial lessons and storybooks on sexuality and gender that conflict with their faith. The Supreme Court protected this right last year in Becket’s Mahmoud v. Taylor win, but Sunnyvale has refused to comply—instructing teachers to “resist pressures” to honor parental opt-out requests and dismissing Mahmoud as applying only to “another state.”

In Taylor v. Sunnyvale School District, the Taylors—represented by Becket and the Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Religious Liberty Clinic—are asking a federal court to stop Sunnyvale from defying Mahmoud and require the district to provide notice and opt-outs the Supreme Court has already guaranteed to religious parents nationwide. Recent data from Becket’s 2025 Religious Freedom Index reveals that Americans overwhelmingly support parental opt-outs, with 73% agreeing that parents are the primary educators of their children and should be able to opt them out of curriculum they believe is morally objectionable or inappropriate.  

“Our children are the most cherished part of our lives,” said Justin and Rose Taylor, residents of Sunnyvale and parents of four young children. “We know and love them best and should be the ones deciding when and how they learn about sensitive topics regarding sexuality and gender. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has recognized that right for religious parents nationwide. We hope that Sunnyvale can choose to acknowledge and respect our role as parents to direct the moral upbringing of our children.” 

Sunnyvale has promoted curriculum that pushes contested views on gender and sexuality throughout the elementary school day. It touts guidance saying that health and science lessons should replace references to “women” with “ovaries” and teach students to view sex verification in sports as a recurring injustice. The same guidance insists that history lessons include instruction on “Two Spirit and Non-Traditional Families” that is designed to “disrupt traditional definitions of the family.” Even math lessons use problems that incorporate same-sex marriage, gender-neutral bathrooms, and other LGBTQ topics. Sunnyvale teachers are also encouraged to read students several of the same Pride storybooks at issue in Mahmoud, which celebrate pride parades, drag queens, gender transitions, and pronoun preferences for young children.

“The Constitution doesn’t come with a California carveout,” said Michael O’Brien, counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the Taylors. “Yet Sunnyvale is acting as if it does—attempting to sidestep Mahmoud and override the Taylors’ clearly protected parental rights while paying lip service to the very diversity the Taylors represent. We’re confident the federal courts will reject that approach.”

Justin and Rose Taylor are devout Christians with two young children in a Sunnyvale elementary school. Their faith teaches that God created each person male or female and that parents have a sacred duty to guide their children’s religious and moral formation. When the Taylors learned that the district was using lessons and storybooks that conflicted with those beliefs, they asked for simple notice and the ability to excuse their children from those lessons. The district initially worked with the Taylors and even sent an opt-out form listing religious objections as grounds for excusing students. But the district later reversed course and declared that its curriculum “is not optional and is not subject to parent opt-out provisions.”

The Taylors plan to file a motion for preliminary injunction against the district in the coming days. 

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

Taylor v. Sunnyvale School District

Sunnyvale’s sweeping Pride curriculum

California’s Sunnyvale School District has promoted a curriculum with contested views on gender and sexuality. Relying on teaching guidance from Santa Clara County, the district integrates these views into ordinary classroom instruction—including math, science, history, and literacy lessons—and applies the instruction across all grade levels. The County’s teaching guidance lays bare its motivations in quoting a famous LGBTQ activist: “the struggle is really won in the hearts and minds of the community.” For Sunnyvale, that means converting the impressionable hearts and minds of four-to ten-year-olds.

The same County guidance embraced by Sunnyvale encourages health and science teachers to teach that “women” can’t produce eggs; instead, only “ovaries” produce eggs. History lessons include instruction on “Two Spirit and Non-Traditional Families” that is designed to “disrupt traditional definitions of the family.” Even math lessons use problems that incorporate same-sex marriage, gender-neutral bathrooms, and other LGBTQ topics. Sunnyvale teachers are also encouraged to read students the same Pride storybooks at issue in Mahmoud, which celebrate pride parades, gender transitions, and pronoun preferences for young children.

A family seeking to live its faith

Justin and Rose Taylor have a son and daughter entering the third and first grades at a Sunnyvale elementary school. As devout Christians, the Taylors believe that God created each person male or female, that biological sex is part of a person’s God-given identity, and that parents have a sacred duty to guide their children’s religious and moral formation. The district’s curriculum directly conflicts with those beliefs and also exposes the Taylors’ young children to ideas they believe are age inappropriate.

In September of 2025, the Taylors asked Sunnyvale simply to notify them and to excuse their children from lessons that used the Pride storybooks or similar materials.  At first, the district worked with the Taylors. In early October, it sent Justin and Rose an opt-out form—one that expressly listed religious objections as grounds to excuse a child from instruction—and promised to review their request. The Taylors’ principal also instructed school librarians not to check out any of the Pride storybooks to the Taylor children. Then, after months of cordial back-and-forth, the district abruptly reversed course. In a letter denying the Taylors’ request, Sunnyvale declared that its curriculum “is not optional and is not subject to parent opt-out provisions,” and flippantly dismissed Mahmoud as a case about “another state.”

Sunnyvale is defying the law of the land

Sunnyvale has thumbed its nose at the Supreme Court in brazen defiance of its Mahmoud decision. In Mahmoud, the Court held that Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools violated religious freedom by denying parents notice and opt-outs from storybooks and instruction that conflicted with their faith. That is exactly what happened here—and Sunnyvale even promotes many of the same storybooks for its mandatory LGBTQ+ instruction. Like the parents in Mahmoud, the Taylors asked only to be notified when the instruction would occur and to excuse their own children from it. Like Montgomery County, Sunnyvale refused. And Sunnyvale’s defiance was no accident. After Mahmoud came down, Sunnyvale told its teachers to “resist pressures” that might get in the way of its curriculum

With Becket’s help, the Taylors filed a federal lawsuit against Sunnyvale in June 2026, asking the court to ensure Sunnyvale respects the Taylors’ clearly protected parental rights.

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

  • Parental Rights: Parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children—an authority which parents do not surrender at the schoolhouse door. Teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of many religions. On such core questions, Becket defends the religious authority of parents.   

Montgomery County forced to pay religious families $1.5 million after Supreme Court ruling for parents’ rights

WASHINGTON – The Montgomery County, Maryland, Board of Education must pay $1.5 million in damages to Becket’s clients and comply with court-enforced protections for parental rights following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling inMahmoud v. Taylor. The case arose after the School Board took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that promote gender transitioning, Pride parades, and pronoun preferences to children as young as three and four (Watch this podcast episode to learn more). Becket represented a diverse coalition of religious parents including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who successfully challenged the policy at the Supreme Court. 

In the Court’s 6-3 ruling last summer, Justice Alito—writing for the majority—said that “the right of parents ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their’ children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.” He went on to say that the Court “cannot agree” with lower courts that have ruled otherwise for over fifty years. 

The Supreme Court’s decision was met with broad public agreement. New data from Becket’s 2025 Religious Freedom Index shows that 62% of Americans support the Court’s ruling.

“Public schools nationwide are on notice: running roughshod over parental rights and religious freedom isn’t just illegal—it’s costly,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the parents. “This settlement enforces the Supreme Court’s ruling and ensures parents, not government bureaucrats, have the final say in how their children are raised.”  

Under the settlement and permanent injunction, the Montgomery County Board of Education must provide parents with advance notice when instructional materials addressing family life and human sexuality will be used and allow parents to opt their children out of that instruction. The agreement also requires the Board to pay damages to the families and places the district under ongoing court jurisdiction to ensure compliance. 

“It took tremendous courage for these parents to stand up to the School Board and take their case all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Baxter. “Their victory reshaped the law and ensured that generations of religious parents will be able to guide their children’s upbringing according to their faith.”

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

Mirabelli v. Bonta

California keeps parents in the dark

California’s Department of Education issued guidance that directed public schools to treat a student’s expressed transgender status at school as private information that could be withheld from parents. Schools were told to respect a student’s wishes about who could be informed—including whether parents would be told at all—and to avoid sharing that information except in rare situations. As a result, parents across California have been left unaware when schools begin treating their children as a different gender during the school day, and teachers have been forced to carry out that secrecy and deception.

Religious parents and teachers push back 

With the help of LiMandri & Jonna and Thomas More Society, a group of parents and teachers filed a lawsuit challenging California’s secret transition policy. Catholic families involved in the case discovered that their children had been socially transitioned at school without their knowledge or consent, cutting them out of decisions central to their children’s upbringing and faith. In one family’s case, the parents learned what had been happening only after their daughter attempted suicide. Teachers also challenged the policy, arguing that being required to hide a student’s transgender status from parents violated their deeply held religious beliefs about honoring the role of parents as the primary guides in raising their children. These families still don’t know how the schools are interacting with their children on this important and sensitive issue.  

In December 2025, a federal district court ruled for the parents and teachers and blocked California’s secret transition policy, relying in part on Becket’s landmark Supreme Court victory in Mahmoud v. Taylor. Days later, a federal appeals court put that ruling on hold. On January 8, 2026, the parents and teachers filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to restore their hard-won protection. 

Becket defends parents’ right to raise their children according to their faith 

On January 20, 2026, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the parents and teachers. The brief urged the Supreme Court to protect the right of parents to raise and educate their children according to their faith. It explained that the Court has long recognized this principle—from its earliest parental-rights decisions to its recent ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor—and that these protections do not disappear when families choose public schools. 

Becket’s brief also noted that disputes over schools transitioning children without parental knowledge are increasingly common, reaching courts across the country. This case gave the Supreme Court an opportunity to reaffirm its existing precedent and provide clear guidance to lower courts and school districts, ensuring that parents are not sidelined in matters central to family life, and children’s wellbeing and religious upbringing.

The Supreme Court blocked California’s policy and protected parents’ rights to know what is happening with their children at school. In its per curiam opinion released on March 2, 2026, the Court wrote that California’s policies were an even “greater” intrusion on parents’ rights than the policy in Mahmoud and that “California’s policies will likely not survive the strict scrutiny that Mahmoud demands. The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy. But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.” 

Importance to religious liberty:   

  • Parental rights: Parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children—an authority parents do not surrender at the schoolhouse door. Teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of most religions. On such core questions, Becket defends the religious authority of parents.   

Wyatt Bury, LLC v. City of Kansas City

A Nationwide Crisis

Between 2017 and 2021, the number of American young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria—an experience of severe distress over their biological sex—increased 300%. Research shows that the vast majority of these children will grow out of their distress naturally if allowed to go through puberty unhindered. Nevertheless, thousands of these children have instead been put through a “gender transition,” including a regime of puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries, to make their bodies resemble the opposite sex. There is no reliable evidence that these procedures offer any long-term benefits, and abundant evidence that they cause lasting harms—including increased risk of cancer, loss of bone density, sexual dysfunction, and permanent sterilization.

Because of these harms, 26 states and several European countries have banned or severely restricted gender transitions for children. And victims of this treatment are increasingly coming forward, asking why they were offered medical treatment to change their bodies, instead of compassionate care to help them navigate natural puberty and careful counseling to help them heal from the underlying causes of their discomfort. (See their stories.)

Counselors Can Help

Faith-based counselors nationwide help youth who struggle to accept their biological sex by taking a more cautious approach. They talk with children to address the underlying causes of their discomfort, alleviate their distress, and, if possible, help them to accept their bodies without resorting to irreversible life-altering medical intervention. This approach is supported by the best available scientific evidence and supported by recently enacted laws in dozens of states and several European countries.

Kansas City and Jackson County, Missouri, however, ban counselors from using a cautious approach. Rather than allowing children to work through the root causes of their discomfort, local ordinances require counselors to affirm children in their belief that they were born in the wrong body—and only allow counseling that assists a child in undergoing a gender transition. As a result, therapists who offer compassionate talk therapy to children who want that help, like Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenreich, face the loss of their business license, fines of up to $1,000, and even jail time. 

A defense of compassionate counseling

On October 24, 2025, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Eighth Circuit in support of Bury and Eisenreich. The brief argues that the bans on talk therapy disproportionately harm religious children and silence one side of an important medical debate—punishing counselors who want to help children work through the underlying causes of their distress without rushing into irreversible medical procedures. The brief urges the court to protect the ability of therapists to offer compassionate care that reflects both sound science and their deeply held beliefs.

Kansas City and Jackson County aren’t the only jurisdictions targeting compassionate counseling for children struggling with their biological sex. In Michigan, Becket represents Catholic therapist Emily McJones and a local Catholic Charities counseling ministry in a case challenging a similar state law. Becket is also supporting a faith-based counselor in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that was recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Like Bury and Eisenreich, these counselors are asking the courts to protect their ability to help children in distress without being forced to steer them toward life-altering medical interventions.  

Importance to religious liberty:

  • Free speech: Free speech includes the right to a free and peaceful exchange of ideas with others—including religious ideas. Freedom of speech and religious liberty go hand-in-hand; protecting one protects the other.
  • Individual freedom: Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times, including in the workplace. 
  • Parental Rights: Parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of most religions, and Becket defends the right of parents to guide their own children on such matters.

Supreme Court restores parental opt-outs for Pride Storybooks

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 today that parents have the right to opt their children out of storybooks that push one-sided ideology on gender and sexuality. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Montgomery County Board of Education took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that celebrate gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences with kids as young as three and four. Older students can opt out when similar topics are introduced during health class. Becket represents a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who challenged the opt-out ban in 2023. (Watch this short video to learn more.)  

In the Court’s 6-3 decision today, Justice Alito writing for the majority said, “Today’s decision recognizes that the right of parents ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their’ children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.” He went on to say that the Court “cannot agree” with lower courts who have ruled otherwise for over fifty years.  

The new “inclusivity” books were announced in 2022 for students in pre-K through fifth grade. Instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, however, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks three- and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense.” Teachers are instructed to say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks, which violates Maryland law, the Board’s policies, and the advice of its own elementary school principals.

Soon after the School Board announced it would take away parental notice and opt-outs for the storybooks, a diverse coalition of religious parents sued the School Board in federal court. Despite faith differences, these parents believe the storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their children, and inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Last year, the parents asked the Supreme Court to restore their right to notice and opt-outs so they can help guide their children’s education in accordance with their faith—a result that, according to a recent poll, most Americans support. 

Becket will be hosting a press call at 12:00 p.m. ET today to discuss the Court’s historic ruling. 

Press Call Information:
Dial 312-626-6799 (Meeting ID: 849 8489 2727)
or join https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84984892727 

Statements for media use: 

Grace Morrison, board member of Kids First: 

“The Supreme Court sent a powerful message today: parents do not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids. I am deeply grateful to have been part of this historic triumph for parental rights nationwide.” 

Billy Moges, director of Kids First: 

“We thank the Lord for His faithfulness, for raising up voices of truth and justice, and for moving in the hearts of the judges to uphold righteousness. This moment is a reminder that when we stand firm in faith and pursue justice, God goes before us. This ruling is more than just a legal win, it is a moral and spiritual triumph that acknowledges the sacred responsibility entrusted to parents.  

In a time when family values are often challenged, this decision stands as a beacon of justice, reaffirming that parents not the state are the primary stewards of their children’s lives. Let us continue to pray, speak up, and protect the next generation with boldness and love. To God be all the glory.”

Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket: 

“This is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents’ permission. Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents—not government—have the final say in how their children are raised.” 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

Next Week: Religious parents at Supreme Court to restore opt-outs for Pride Storybooks

WASHINGTON – A diverse group of religious parents will be at the Supreme Court next week fighting to restore their right to opt their children out of storybooks that push one-sided ideology on gender identity and sexuality. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Montgomery County Board of Education took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that celebrate gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences with kids as young as three and four. Older students can opt out when similar topics are introduced during health class. Becket represents a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who challenged the opt-out ban in 2023 (Watch this short video to learn more).  

The new “inclusivity” books were announced in 2022 for students in pre-K through fifth grade. Instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, however, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense.” Teachers are instructed to say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks, which violates Maryland law, the Board’s policies, and the advice of its own elementary school principals. 

Soon after the School Board announced it would take away parental notice and opt-outs for the storybooks, a diverse coalition of religious parents sued the School Board in federal court. Last year, the parents asked the Supreme Court to restore their right to notice and opt-outs so they can help guide their children’s education in accordance with their beliefs—a result that, according to a recent poll, most Americans support.  

What:   
Oral Argument in Mahmoud v. Taylor 

   
Arguing before the Court:   
Eric Baxter, vice president & senior counsel at Becket 

When:   
Tuesday, April 22, 2025, at 10 a.m. ET   

   
Where:   
The Supreme Court of the United States 
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Listen to the livestream audio: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx 

 

Before oral argument, there will be a rally beginning at 8:30 a.m. ET outside the Supreme Court hosted by Becket and Kids First, an association of parents and teachers interested in preserving the parental right to notice and opt-out in Montgomery County Public Schools and one of the parties to the lawsuit.    

Becket attorneys will be available for comment outside the Court following the argument.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

26 states, 66 members of Congress & faith groups urge Supreme Court to restore Pride book opt-outs

WASHINGTON – Sixty-six members of Congress, 26 states, diverse faith groups, and legal scholars asked the Supreme Court yesterday to ensure that parents can opt their children out of storybooks that push one-sided ideology on gender and sexuality. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Montgomery County Board of Education took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that celebrate gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences with kids as young as three and four. Becket represents Muslim, Christian, and Jewish parents who challenged the ban on elementary school opt-outs in federal court in 2023 (Watch this short video to learn more). 

The new “inclusivity” books were announced in 2022 for students in pre-K through fifth grade. Instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, however, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense.” Teachers are instructed to say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks last year, which violates Maryland law, the Board’s policies, and the advice of its own elementary school principals. 

Highlights from yesterday’s filings include:

  • The Solicitor General of the United States discusses the “obvious” religious exercise by parents in seeking to shield their children from instruction that violates their religious beliefs and how the Board has violated that religious exercise under a long line of Supreme Court cases. 
  • 26 states highlight the longstanding national tradition of protecting parental direction on sexuality and gender instruction.  
  • 66 members of Congress emphasize the long federal policy of encouraging cooperation between public schools and families over what their children learn in the classroom, and how no federal law requires Montgomery County to withdraw the parents’ notice and opt-out rights. 
  • 35 members of the Maryland legislature explain why Maryland law requires affording religious families notice and opt-outs from this instruction, and how the Maryland legislature is trying to circumvent the families’ protections.
  • A diverse array of ten religious organizations asks the Supreme Court to protect religious families with public school children from the devastating implications of reducing free exercise protections to direct coercion. 
  • Religious liberty law scholars, led by Michael McConnell, Douglas Laycock, Thomas Berg, David Smolin, and Richard Garnett, explain the proper approach to free exercise burdens in the public school context. 
  • Legal scholar Helen Alvaré and twelve state family institutes explain the important role of public school authority figures and the influence of transmitting a family’s religious traditions.  
  • Legal historians Eric DeGroff and Ernie Walton, show the long historical tradition of protecting parental religious authority over their child’s education, including in the public school context.  
  • Prominent legal groups including America First Legal Foundation and Americans for Prosperity, explain the lack of historical pedigree for the controversial and one-sided instruction here, and how it goes beyond the delegated authority of parents to their public schools.  

“As this outpouring of support makes clear, parents don’t take a backseat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Montgomery County’s decision to run roughshod over parental rights betrays our nation’s traditions and common sense. The Justices should restore the opt-out and allow parents to raise their children according to their beliefs.” 

You can find all friend-of-the-court briefs filed in this case at the link here. The case will be argued on April 22, 2025. 

Religious parents ask Supreme Court to restore opt-outs for Pride storybooks

WASHINGTON – A diverse group of religious parents asked the Supreme Court to restore their right to opt their children out of storybooks that push one-sided ideology on gender and sexuality. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Montgomery County Board of Education took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that celebrate gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences with kids as young as three and four. Older students can opt out when similar topics are introduced during high school health class. Becket represents a diverse coalition of religious parents including Muslims, Christians, and Jews who challenged the opt-out ban in 2023 (Watch this short video to learn more). After a federal appeals court refused to restore their rights, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case earlier this year. 

The new “inclusivity” books were announced in 2022 for students in pre-K through fifth grade. Instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, however, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense.” Teachers are instructed to say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks, which violates Maryland law, the Board’s policies, and the advice of its own elementary school principals. 

“Montgomery County is pushing inappropriate gender theory on our children all while neglecting the core education they need to succeed,” said Grace Morrison, board member of Kids First, an association of parents and teachers advocating for notice and opt-outs in Montgomery County Schools. “We pray the Supreme Court puts a stop to this nonsense once and for all and restores parents’ right to raise their own children according to their beliefs.”  

Soon after the School Board announced it would take away parental notice and opt-outs for the storybooks, a diverse coalition of religious parents sued the School Board in federal court. Despite faith differences, these parents believe the storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their children, and inconsistent with their beliefs. Last year, the parents asked the Supreme Court to restore their right to notice and opt-outs so they can help guide their children’s education in accordance with their beliefs—a result that, according to a recent poll, most Americans support.  

“Forcing toddlers to learn about drag queens and pride parades without their parents knowing is as unconstitutional as it is unnecessary,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Our nation has a long tradition of respecting parents’ right to decide when and how to introduce their children to such sensitive topics, and we are confident the Court will uphold that enduring freedom here.” 

The Court will hear the case on April 22, 2025. 

BREAKING: Supreme Court to decide if parents can opt kids out of Pride Storybooks

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed today to decide whether parents can opt their children out of storybooks that push one-sided ideology on gender and sexuality. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that celebrate gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences with kids as young as three and four. Older students can opt out when similar topics are introduced during high school health class. Becket represents Muslim, Christian, and Jewish parents who challenged the ban on elementary school opt-outs in federal court in 2023 (Watch this short video to learn more).  

The new “inclusivity” books were announced in 2022 for students in pre-K through fifth grade. Instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, however, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense.” Teachers are instructed to say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks in 2023, which violates Maryland law, the Board’s policies, and the advice of its own elementary school principals.  

“The School Board has pushed inappropriate gender indoctrination on our children instead of focusing on the fundamental areas of education that they need to thrive,” said Grace Morrison, board member of Kids First, an association of parents and teachers advocating for notice and opt-outs in Montgomery County Schools. “I pray the Supreme Court will stop this injustice, allow parents to raise their children according to their faith, and restore common sense in Maryland once again.”  

Soon after the School Board announced it would take away parental notice and opt-outs for the storybooks, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, sued the School Board in federal court. Despite faith differences, these parents believe the new storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their kids, and inconsistent with their beliefs. After a lower court upheld the opt-out ban, the parents appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals but were denied again, with one judge dissenting. Last year, the parents asked the Supreme Court to restore their right to notice and opt-outs so they can help guide their children’s education in accordance with their beliefs—a result that, according to a recent poll, most Americans support. 

“Cramming down controversial gender ideology on three-year-olds without their parents’ permission is an affront to our nation’s traditions, parental rights, and basic human decency,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The Court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality.” 

The Court is expected to hear the case later this spring.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

25 states, diverse faith groups, & legal scholars to Supreme Court: restore parental opt-outs for Pride storybooks

WASHINGTON – A coalition of Muslims, Jews, Christians, twenty-five states, parents, and legal scholars asked the Supreme Court yesterday to ensure that parents can opt their children out of storybooks that push one-sided ideology on gender and sexuality. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Montgomery County Maryland Board of Education took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that celebrate gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences with kids as young as three and four. Becket represents Muslim, Christian, and Jewish parents who challenged the ban on elementary school opt-outs in federal court last year (Watch this short video to learn more). 

The new “inclusivity” books were announced in 2022 for students in pre-K through fifth grade. Instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, however, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense.” Teachers are instructed to say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks last year, which violates Maryland law, the Board’s policies, and the advice of its own elementary school principals. 

“It’s encouraging to see a large coalition of common-sense voices denouncing the School Board’s decision to run roughshod over parental rights,” said Grace Morrison, board member of Kids First, an association of parents and teachers advocating for notice and opt-outs in Montgomery County Schools. “I pray the Justices will take this case and ensure that parents get to decide how and when to introduce their own children to these sensitive topics.” 

Highlights from yesterday’s filings in Mahmoud v. Taylor include:  

  • 25 states including Virginia, Ohio, and Texas, highlighting how the School Board’s withdrawal of notice and opt-out rights upends longstanding national consensus protecting the role of parents in directing their children’s exposure to issues of sexuality and gender.   
  • Religious liberty law scholars led by Michael McConnell, Douglas Laycock, Thomas Berg, Helen Alvaré, and Richard Garnett, arguing that the School Board’s policy is premised on an anomalous approach to protecting religious exercise in public programs. 
  • Prominent legal groups including First Liberty Institute and Christian Legal Society explaining the correct First Amendment framework to approach this case.. 

“As this outpouring of support shows, parents—not the government—should have the final say in how their kids are introduced to complex topics of gender and sexuality,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The School Board’s decision to cut parents out of these discussions flouts our nation’s traditions and common sense. We’re asking the Justices to restore the opt-out and allow parents to raise their children according to their beliefs.” 

You can find all friend-of-the-court briefs filed in this case at the link here.  

Religious parents to Supreme Court: restore opt-outs for instruction on gender and sexuality

WASHINGTON – A diverse group of religious parents in Maryland asked the Supreme Court yesterday to restore their right to opt their children out of storybooks that push one-sided ideology on gender and sexuality. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Montgomery County Board of Education took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that celebrate gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences with kids as young as three and four. Older students can opt out when similar topics are introduced during high school health class. Becket represents Muslim, Christian, and Jewish parents who challenged the ban on elementary school opt-outs in federal court last year (Watch this short video to learn more). After the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to restore their rights, these parents are asking the Supreme Court to do so. 

The new “inclusivity” books were announced in 2022 for students in pre-K through fifth grade. Instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, however, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense.” Teachers are instructed to say doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks last year, which violates Maryland law, the Board’s policies, and the advice of its own elementary school principals. 

“The School Board is pushing a controversial ideology that has been rejected by governments around the world and has even been criticized by the Board’s own principals as inappropriate for the intended age group,” said Grace Morrison, board member of Kids First, an association of parents and teachers advocating for notice and opt-outs in Montgomery County Schools. “Children deserve a period of innocence. The Supreme Court should take this case, restore the opt-out, and let parents decide how and when to introduce their own elementary school kids to these sensitive topics.”  

Soon after the School Board announced it would take away parental notice and opt-outs for the storybooks, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, sued the School Board in federal court. Despite faith differences, these parents believe the new storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their kids, and inconsistent with their beliefs. After a lower court upheld the opt-out ban, the parents sought relief from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals but were denied again, with one judge dissenting. These parents yesterday asked the Supreme Court to restore their right to notice and opt-outs so they can help guide their children’s education in accordance with their beliefs—a result that, according to a recent poll, most Americans support. 

“Parents shouldn’t have to take a back seat to anyone when it comes to introducing their children to complex and sensitive issues around gender and sexuality,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Nearly every state requires parental consent before high schoolers can attend sex-ed. Parents should have the right to excuse their elementary school children when related instruction is introduced during story hour.” 

The Court will consider whether to hear the case later this fall.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219. 

Mahmoud v. Taylor

Let Parents Parent: Restore the Opt-Out in Montgomery County

PODCAST: Why These Parents Took Their School Board to the Supreme Court

Montgomery County’s Pride Storybooks 

In fall 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education announced over 20 new “inclusivity” books for its pre-K through eighth grade classrooms. But rather than focusing on basic civility and kindness, these books championed pride parades, gender transitioning, and pronoun preferences for children. For example, one book tasked three- and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “[drag] queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another encouraged fifth graders to discuss what it means to be “non-binary.” Other books advocated a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense” and that doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway. The teacher’s guide to another book about a playground same-sex romance invited schoolkids to share with classmates how they feel when they “don’t just ‘like’ but … ‘like like’” someone. The curriculum suppressed free speech and independent thinking by having teachers tell students they are “hurtful” if they questioned these controversial ideologies.  

When the Board first went public with its Pride Storybooks, it assured hundreds of concerned parents they would be notified when the books were read and could opt their children out. This meant parents troubled by the books’ blatant disregard for widely held religious beliefs and scientific perspectives would be respected. Upholding parental rights also meant that children would not be subjected to age-inappropriate instruction against their parents’ wishes. Indeed, in Maryland—as in most states across America—teaching family life and human sexuality requires parental notification and the ability to opt out. Historically, the Board has respected that law, allowing parents to opt their children out of sex ed classes and controversial readings on related topics. The Board’s own “Guidelines” regarding religious diversity go even further. They guarantee that parents may seek opt outs and alternative assignments for their children on a wide range of potential classroom activities, discussions, and reading assignments.

“Inclusion” as exclusion of parents 

Everything changed in March 2023, when the School Board issued a statement saying it would no longer notify parents or honor requests to opt out. Immediately, parents of the more than 70,000 elementary schoolkids in Montgomery County were denied their right to decide when their elementary-aged children would be exposed to books promoting transgender and queer ideology. One Board member justified the decision by claiming that allowing opt-outs because these books “offend[] your religious rights or your family values or your core beliefs is just telling [your] kid, ‘Here’s another reason to hate another person.’”  

Soon after, a diverse coalition of religious parents including Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others began to fight back. While coming from different faith backgrounds, these parents all believe the books are age inappropriate, harmful to children, and portray notions of sex and gender that conflict with their religious beliefs. Though they have many different beliefs, these parents are united in protecting their right to direct their children’s religious and intellectual education on such sensitive matters regarding family life and human sexuality.   

The law protects parents’ right to guide their children’s education 

The Board cannot refuse parents who want to opt their children out of instruction that violates their religious beliefs on sensitive matters. The Board is unlawfully coming between parents and their kids and targeting them because of their religious beliefs about gender and sexuality. That violates the Board’s own policies, Maryland law, and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that children are not wards of the state, and that parents have the right to make key decisions about the education of their children on such critical matters concerning family life and human sexuality. 

After filing the lawsuit on May 24, 2023, the district court ruled against the parents. They appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and on May 15, 2024, the appellate court ruled to keep the school board’s no-notice, no-opt-out policy. Becket appealed the ruling to the United States Supreme Court on September 12, 2024. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and oral argument was heard on April 22, 2025. 

On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the parents have the right to opt their children out of the storybooks. In the Court’s decision, Justice Alito writing for the majority said, “Today’s decision recognizes that the right of parents ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their’ children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.” He went on to say that the Court “cannot agree” with lower courts who have ruled otherwise for over fifty years. 

Following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, the Montgomery County Board of Education paid $1.5 million in damages to Becket’s clients and promised to comply with court-enforced protections for parental rights. They also agreed to provide parents with advance notice when instructional materials addressing family life and human sexuality will be used and to allow parents to opt their children out of that instruction.  

This is a monumental win for parental rights in Maryland and across America. With this decision, the Supreme Court restored common sense and made clear that parents—not government—have the final say in how their children are raised. 

Importance to Religious Liberty: 

Parental Rights: Parents have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children—an authority parents do not surrender at the schoolhouse door. Teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of most religions. On such core questions, Becket defends the religious authority of parents.