BREAKING: Landmark Victory for Parental Rights at SCOTUS

Mahmoud v. Taylor sets the stage for victories beyond curriculum opt outs - including school vaccination mandates.

In a monumental victory for parental rights, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in favor of parents who wish to opt out of LGBTQ+ curriculum in public schools, because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Writing for the majority in a 6-3 decision, Justice Samuel Alito expressly rejected the notion espoused by the defendants and the dissent, i.e. that forcing students to read books about gay marriage or gender transitioning is merely about “exposure” to different viewpoints, and teaching children to show “kindness” to others. Instead, the Court found that the school board’s policy expressed hostility to parents and students with traditional religious beliefs about sex, gender, and marriage, and carried with them “a very real threat of undermining” those beliefs. Relying heavily on its precedent set forth in the landmark cases of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972) and West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943), the Court held that “[t]he Board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion.”

Before diving into further analysis, I’d like to pause for a moment to lament the fact that it was even necessary to file this lawsuit in the first place. As recently as a decade or two ago, it would have been obvious to virtually every school board in America that it is unconstitutional to force children to receive instruction that so clearly contradicts their religious beliefs, and those of their parents. And for the majority of human history, schools would have never even considered including books like “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” or “Born Ready” in their curricula. The fact that we needed a U.S. Supreme Court decision to say what should have been (and always was) obvious to all of us, is just plain sad. What’s even sadder is the fact the parents and children had to be dragged through the painful (and expensive) process of litigation to gain this victory, all the while being deprived of their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. As the Court reiterated today (quoting its famous covid-era ruling in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo), “‘[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’”

And this brings me to my next point. While many today are rightly celebrating this decision as a victory for religious freedom and parental rights, I’ve yet to see any analysis discussing its implications in the context of school vaccination mandates. But those implications loom large. The Court pulled no punches in defending the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children not only in the home, but also outside the home - and that includes public schools:

The practice of educating one’s children in one’s religious beliefs, like all religious acts and practices, receives a generous measure of protection from our Constitution. “Drawing on ‘enduring American tradition,’ we have long recognized the rights of parents to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children.” … And this is not merely a right to teach religion in the confines of one’s own home. Rather, it extends to the choices that parents wish to make for their children outside the home. It protects, for example, a parent’s decision to send his or her child to a private religious school instead of a public school. … Due to financial and other constraints, however, many parents “have no choice but to send their children to a public school.” … As a result, 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. We have thus recognized limits on the government’s ability to interfere with a student’s religious upbringing in a public school setting. (Emphasis added; case citations omitted.)

Our opponents - including legislators who voted to repeal the religious exemption to required school vaccinations in places like California, New York, Connecticut, and Maine - have long asserted that they are not “forcing” students to violate their religious beliefs by denying them the right to opt out of vaccinations on that basis. They can choose to homeschool, some have callously suggested. But as this decision recognizes, that is not so easy for every parent, and in any event a parent’s right to direct the religious upbringing must include the right to do so in a public school classroom. While I greatly respect the decision to homeschool, it should always remain a decision, rather than a mandate from a government that refuses to allow a child to pass through its schoolhouse doors.

The Court’s reaffirmation of Yoder is still more exciting, since that is a case those of us fighting to restore the religious exemption to school vaccinations have often relied upon heavily in arguing that the denial of religious exemptions strips parents of their right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Time and again, that argument has been tossed aside, and our reliance on Yoder dismissed as misplaced. That is precisely what the district court and the Fourth Circuit did in the Mahmoud case, and the Court had some very strong words about it:

Next, we cannot agree with the decision of the lower courts to dismiss our holding in Yoder out of hand. Although the decision turned on a close analysis of the facts in the record, there is no reason to conclude that the decision is “sui generis” or uniquely “tailored to [its] specific evidence,” as the courts below reasoned. See 688 F. Supp. 3d, at 301; 102 F. 4th, at 211. We have never confined Yoder to its facts. To the contrary, we have treated it like any other precedent.

… Yoder is an important precedent of this Court, and it cannot be breezily dismissed as a special exception granted to one particular religious minority. It instead embodies a principle of general applicability, and that principle provides more robust protection for religious liberty than the alarmingly narrow rule that the dissent propounds. The dissent sees the Free Exercise Clause’s guarantee as nothing more than protection against compulsion or coercion to renounce or abandon one’s religion. … Under this test, even instruction that denigrates or ridicules students’ religious beliefs would apparently be allowed.

We reject this chilling vision of the power of the state to strip away the critical right of parents to guide the religious development of their children. Yoder and Barnette embody a very different view of religious liberty, one that comports with the fundamental values of the American people.

In rejecting what has developed in the case law as an extremely narrow reading of Yoder, the Court has opened the door for its broader application in a variety of other contexts. Although the court did not specifically identify those contexts, it is difficult to see how Yoder would not be controlling where a school is refusing to allow children to participate in public education unless they receive a vaccination that violates their religious beliefs. If denying an opt out for a classroom reading of a story that contradicts a family’s faith is an unconstitutional infringement on the free exercise of religion and the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children, it is hard to imagine that a school denying an opt out for a bodily injection that violates the family’s faith is not also unconstitutional.

The Court also decried the hostility the school board demonstrated to parents of faith when it instituted the policy of denying religious opt outs for its LGBTQ+ curriculum: “A classroom environment that is welcoming to all students is something to be commended, but such an environment cannot be achieved through hostility toward the religious beliefs of students and their parents.” Just last month, we filed a case against the Ventura, California Unified School District on behalf of a student who was expelled from school because of his religious exemption to vaccinations, and his parents who were charged with truancy. If that’s not hostility to persons of faith, I don’t know what is.

And there’s more good news, too. As many of you know, we also have an ongoing federal lawsuit on behalf of Oakland, California kindergarten teacher Mirella Ramirez, who was fired because she refused to use male pronouns to refer to her five-year-old female student, who her parents said was transitioning to a boy. The school refused to honor Mirella’s request for a religious accommodation, and Mirella refused to cave to the school’s tyrannical orders. Although today’s case is not directly on point, as it involves the rights of parents and children, it once again demonstrates this Court’s strong commitment to defend religious liberty. It is hard to imagine the Court ruling that parents and students are entitled to religious liberty in public schools, but not teachers.

As we prepare to celebrate our five-year anniversary of fighting tyranny on all fronts here at We The Patriots USA on July 4, 2025, I’d like to ask you to consider a gift to our Mid-Year Giving Campaign. Your tax-deductible contribution will fuel our continued legal efforts in places like Oakland and Ventura, where government overreach still runs rampant. Today’s decision is proof positive that cases like this are worth filing, and worth supporting. Please help us continue the trend of creating important precedent that will protect our children, and the precious rights enshrined in our Constitution.