Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

The Constitution does not always know what to do with discomfort. It can name violence, punish censorship, protect belief. But discomfort lives in the shadows: in the quiet space between conscience and control, between what offends and what erases. It is not easily measured. But it is deeply felt. And it is here, in this unsettled gap, that the country’s fiercest battles over education, identity, and freedom are now being fought.

That gap is where Mahmoud v. Taylor now places the Supreme Court. The case began in Montgomery County, Maryland, where a group of parents objected to LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks being read in their children’s elementary school classrooms. The books depict families with two moms, a wedding between two men, a child exploring their name. No one is punished for speaking out about the books. But the stories are present, and the school district no longer allows parents to opt out or receive advance notice. That denial—the inability to withhold a child from exposure—is what the parents claim as harm.

They argue that even passive exposure to these narratives conflicts with their faith, undermines their authority as parents, and infringes on their right to shape their children’s moral and spiritual development. In their view, this is not education. Instead, the classroom has become a site of intrusion, and the stories, however representative or real, are treated as a kind of breach.

It is a claim that draws power from one of the oldest currents in American law: the deep suspicion of state control over belief, especially in the lives of children. For generations, the Constitution has protected the family as a moral enclave, a space where the government’s reach is limited and parental authority is presumed. The parents in Mahmoud are reaching for that legacy, casting their objection not as prejudice but as a defense of conscience.

But that appeal cannot stand apart from the political project it advances. Whatever the constitutional seriousness of the petitioners’ position, Mahmoud is part of a larger campaign: a movement to weaponize parental control as a tool of exclusion, to recast education as offense, and to turn public schools into battlegrounds for a narrow and nostalgic vision of America. Across the country, books with queer characters and gay parents are being removed from library shelves. Likewise, in many of those same districts, children are no longer being taught that slavery existed at all. Let alone that it was brutal, systematic, and defended by law and Scripture alike.

The petitioners in both settings say the point is to protect children. But one of the deeper undercurrents flowing through this case is the instinct to protect something else: a curated comfort, a version of the world in which certain lives are invisible. What begins as a plea for conscience can become a mechanism for control. The discomfort may not necessarily seek to compel indoctrination, but it does erase the existence of lives, truths, and histories some would rather forget or disappear.

This case tests whether the act of being present—of listening, of seeing, of knowing—can itself be a form of state compulsion. Whether a child’s exposure to difference, without endorsement or assent, can be treated as a constitutional injury. And what the court must now decide is whether freedom of belief can be stretched into a right to look away.

The dispute in Mahmoud began in 2022, when Montgomery County Public Schools, one of the largest and most diverse districts in Maryland, introduced a series of LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks into its English language arts curriculum for pre–K through fifth grade. The books, known internally as “inclusivity texts,” were integrated into lessons meant to reflect the identities and experiences of the district’s student population. These included books like Uncle Bobby’s Wedding and My Rainbow—stories that portray same-sex couples, gender nonconformity, and affirming representations of queer families.

Initially, MCPS provided parents the option to opt their children out of lessons involving these books, as it had done in other contexts where religious or cultural objections were anticipated. But in March 2023, the district reversed course. Citing the need to promote a unified message of inclusivity and to prevent stigmatization, MCPS announced it would no longer grant opt outs or provide advance notice before these books were read. The reversal sparked immediate backlash.

Mark Joseph Stern Read More

Several families, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, filed suit in federal court. The plaintiffs challenging the policy, the parents of Muslim, Catholic, and Ethiopian Orthodox faith, are not asking the court to prohibit inclusive books from classrooms. Their legal claim is more focused, but no less sweeping. They allege that the district’s refusal to allow opt outs violated their rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. They argued that compulsory exposure to messages about gender identity and same-sex relationships placed a burden on their religious beliefs and interfered with their constitutionally protected right to direct the upbringing of their children. The state, they contend, is compelling moral exposure under the guise of public education. The complexity of this case runs deeper still: Many of the families bringing it come from religious traditions that have themselves been marginalized, surveilled, or excluded from the American civic mainstream.

Soon after filing suit, the families asked the court for a preliminary injunction, a temporary order that would block the school district from enforcing the new policy while the case moved forward. To obtain that kind of urgent relief, plaintiffs must convince the court that they are likely to win on the merits, that they will suffer irreparable harm without intervention, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest favor immediate action. The district court denied the request. It found that the parents had not shown a likelihood of success, reasoning that mere exposure to ideas, without compulsion to affirm or act upon them, did not constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners frame their claim around two core constitutional principles: the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children and the prohibition on government policies that substantially burden sincere religious belief without sufficient justification. They root their arguments in precedents like Wisconsin v. Yoder and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which recognize the family as a protected sphere of moral and religious authority, as well as more recent free exercise cases like Tandon v. Newsom, which they interpret to hold that even minimal burdens on religious exercise require exacting judicial review.

In their view, both rights are implicated when a child is required to absorb messages that contradict deeply held religious teachings, especially on matters of sexuality and gender.

They emphasize that Montgomery County has long recognized opt outs in comparable situations and describe the policy shift as a coercive act that denies parents meaningful notice and removes the ability to withdraw their children from instruction that contradicts core religious values. They argue that leaving the public school system is not a viable option for families with limited financial means or children with special educational needs. The effect, they say, is compulsory moral exposure with no off-ramp. What has changed, the petitioners argue, is not the law. It is the politics. Religious objections to LGBTQ+ inclusion are now treated not as differences of belief, but as intolerable resistance.

But the court will have difficulty drawing that line. If presence alone constitutes a constitutional burden, and if parental conscience can trigger opt outs for any perceived offense, the very premise of a shared public education begins to fracture. That is the deeper concern—that granting this kind of opt out would unravel the collective civic purpose of schooling and replace it with a system governed by subjective veto.

The school district, joined by a coalition of civil liberties organizations, has framed it in that light. In their view, Mahmoud is not about religious liberty. It is about public education’s obligation to serve all children, not only those whose families agree with the curriculum. They argue that students are not being punished for dissent, nor required to engage in any form of moral agreement. The children are asked only to listen.

For the respondents, that distinction matters. Exposure is not coercion. And recognition is not indoctrination. The school system’s duty, they argue, is not to mirror the teachings of every household but to ensure that students receive a civic education reflective of the diverse world they inhabit. Allowing individual families to opt out based on subjective moral discomfort would not preserve neutrality but would balkanize the classroom. It would convert shared space into private terrain and transform lesson plans into ideological minefields. That concern, in respondent’s view, is not abstract. The premise of public education is not unanimity. It is contact. A space where disagreement is inevitable and necessary. Courts have long held that public school students are not entitled to immunity from ideas they find objectionable, particularly when those ideas are part of a curriculum designed to foster awareness, not assent. The only thing being required here is presence.

The Department of Justice, now operating under the Trump administration, did not fully endorse the petitioners’ claim that exposure to inclusive content amounts to a constitutional violation. But it did express concern about the district’s decision to revoke previously available opt outs, framing that reversal as potentially hostile to religious exercise and parental authority.

While the DOJ stopped short of advocating for a broad constitutional exemption, it signaled a deeper alignment: sympathy with the view that parents should retain some measure of control when public education diverges from their beliefs. This reflects the administration’s broader strategy to align religious liberty with cultural retrenchment and frame pluralism itself as overreach.

Arguing for the parents, Eric S. Baxter of the Becket Fund insisted that this was a case about conscience and compulsion. His central claim was that the district’s mandatory presence policy operated as an invisible yet meaningful burden on religious exercise. Young children, he argued, were being placed in morally fraught situations without the ability to opt out, and the state had dismissed their parents’ concerns not as legitimate objections but as obstacles to policy. The district, he contended, was not neutral; it had replaced pluralism with “a new orthodoxy.”

Representing the school district, Alan Schoenfeld of WilmerHale, defended the curriculum as a constitutionally permissible expression of civic inclusion, arguing that mere exposure to diverse stories does not amount to coercion or endorse any moral orthodoxy. Schoenfeld argued that while Montgomery County once offered opt outs, withdrawing them did not itself create a constitutional violation. The government, he emphasized, is not constitutionally required to align its speech with every private belief. He also highlighted that granting individualized opt outs based on objectionable content would prove to be administratively unworkable and convert the curriculum into an unmanageable patchwork. He noted that teachers and administrators reported difficulty managing the volume and variety of opt-out requests and that it became impossible to implement a consistent educational experience across classrooms.

Baxter’s framing found early and unsurprising support from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Alito, in particular, pressed the school district’s counsel with pointed skepticism, suggesting that requiring a devout Muslim child to sit through a story celebrating a same-sex wedding might constitute the kind of coercion the First Amendment forbids. He repeatedly challenged the district’s position, questioning whether it privileged “progressive values” while casting religious dissent as bigotry. His tone, though, drew strong rebuttals from across the bench.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded forcefully. “Exposure is not indoctrination,” she said. “It is exposure to a public that exists.” She emphasized that merely hearing a storybook—even one that reflects lives some families disapprove of—does not amount to constitutional harm. She warned that accepting such a theory would effectively create a constitutional right to avoid discomfort.

Justice Elena Kagan appeared unconvinced by bright-line claims on either side, suggesting that both the breadth of the parents’ objection and the district’s reversal raised harder questions than either party acknowledged.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson focused on the broader implications of the parents’ claim, asking: “If we recognize this kind of claim, what stops every parent from demanding a personalized curriculum that excludes whatever they find objectionable?” Her questions echoed the concern that recognizing such opt outs would undermine the very foundation of public education as a shared civic space.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s questions were measured but sharp. She inquired as to whether the district’s abrupt decision to revoke long-standing opt outs—especially without clear explanation—could itself raise constitutional concerns. At the same time, she appeared skeptical of the notion that mere exposure to inclusive content could, on its own, constitute a First Amendment violation.

Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to search for a narrower path. He asked whether the school’s refusal to accommodate any religious objection, despite past practice, represented a significant shift. But he refrained from staking a strong position on either side’s definition of harm.

Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch spoke less frequently but indicated concern with the policy’s structure. Thomas questioned whether the curriculum went beyond passive exposure and amounted to actual instruction in contested values. Gorsuch, meanwhile, focused on the doctrinal framework, asking whether, under Employment Division v. Smith, the case should go directly to strict scrutiny if the policy was not neutral or generally applicable. Both signaled sympathy with the idea that enforced presence in specific contexts could burden religious belief.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh struck a conflicted note. He asked how the court could distinguish between legitimate civic education and compelled moral intrusion. His questions reflected discomfort with the implications of both extremes: a regime in which any perceived offense triggers opt-out rights or one in which parental conscience is wholly sidelined.

If there was a center to this court, it was straining under the weight of this case. Some of the conservative justices signaled a growing willingness to expand the reach of the free exercise clause. The liberal justices warned that such an expansion would destabilize public education’s civic purpose. And beneath it all was a deeper unease—about what it means to raise children in a pluralist democracy, and whether the Constitution will be interpreted to protect exposure to difference or shield families from it.

This Content is Available for Slate Plus members only How Sam Alito Inadvertently Revealed His Own Homophobia From the Bench This Content is Available for Slate Plus members only No One Could Save Sarah Palin—Not Even Trump. She Just Reminded Us All Why. The Courage to Be Decent Alito Got the Single Most Important Fact Wrong in His Emergency Deportation Case Dissent

Pluralism does not promise comfort. It asks us to live with one another anyway. It means that no child gets to be the only child in the room. That no family’s truth can erase another’s name. It means that a student might one day sit beside someone who believes their family should not exist—and still be expected to learn. That burden is not easy. But it cannot fall only on the children whose lives already bear the weight of being debated.

There is a way to honor the seriousness of the rights being asserted in this case—to take seriously the deep convictions of the parents who brought it—without forgetting who stands on the other end of those claims. A child, hearing their family described as harm. A student watching their story treated as something others must be shielded from. Whatever the outcome, this case reminds us that rights do not exist in the abstract; they land on people.

The purpose of public education was never to spare us from one another. It was to prepare us for the world we share. And the promise of the First Amendment was never that we would be protected from difference but that we might grow strong enough to live in its presence.

The court must now decide what to do with that promise. Whether to narrow it. Whether to hollow it. Or whether to uphold it. Not as a shield from discomfort but as a covenant for the world we still have a chance to build for all of us.

Get the best of news and politics Sign up for Slate’s evening newsletter.