Mahmoud v. Taylor
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Mahmoud v. Taylor and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Mahmoud v. Taylor.
The Supreme Court reviewed the Board's policy requiring LGBTQ+-inclusive instruction, which petitioners argued burdened their right to free exercise of religion. The Court found the policy imposed a substantial burden on religious exercise, warranting strict scrutiny. The Court reversed the lower court's decision, granting a preliminary injunction allowing parents to excuse their children from the instruction.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
The Court held that the Board's policy burdens the parents' right to the free exercise of religion and is not constitutionally permitted.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Mahmoud v. Taylor. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Exercise of Religion is relevant to Mahmoud v. Taylor
The case centers on whether the Board's policy burdens the parents' right to the free exercise of religion.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Having concluded that the Board's policy burdens the parents' right to the free exercise of religion, the Court turns to the question whether that burden is constitutionally permitted.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Mahmoud v. Taylor
The Court exercises its power to review and invalidate the Board's policy as unconstitutional.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The parents tried and failed to obtain legislative change, and had every right to resort to judicial review to protect their rights.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to Mahmoud v. Taylor
The case involves evaluating whether the Board's policy infringes on fundamental rights related to religious upbringing.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The question in cases of this kind is whether the educational requirement or curriculum at issue would 'substantially interfere with the religious development' of the child.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Mahmoud v. Taylor that support the summary and concepts above.
The storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.
Public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot 'condition' its 'availability' on parents' willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.
Without an injunction, the parents will continue to suffer an unconstitutional burden on their religious exercise.
