The question
Whether parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction allowing their children to be excused from public school instruction using "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks when the school board withheld notice and opt outs, on the theory that the policy burdens their religious exercise.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
What the Court decided
The parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction. The Court held that parents challenging the Montgomery County Board of Education's introduction of "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks, combined with its decision to withhold notice and opt outs, are likely to succeed on their claim that the policy unconstitutionally burdens their religious exercise. The Court relied on the recognized right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children, which is violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
The Court held that the parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction because they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Board's introduction of the storybooks combined with the withholding of notice and opt outs unconstitutionally burdens their religious exercise. It grounded the holding in the recognized right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children, which is violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.
Concurring
Thomas, writing alone
Thomas filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus notes the opinion at page 581 but does not state its reasoning.
Dissenting
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson
Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Kagan and Jackson. The syllabus notes the opinion at page 592 but does not state its reasoning.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction permitting their children to be excused from instruction related to the storybooks while the lawsuit proceeds.
Source: syllabus, Held
The parents are likely to succeed on their claim that the Board's policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court relied on the recognized right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children, which is violated by policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.
Source: syllabus, Held
Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Kagan and Jackson.
Source: syllabus, lineup