A Supreme Court decision earlier this summer is raising questions about curriculum opt-outs based on the religious beliefs of families. Legal experts have called it a major change that could broaden the number and type of challenges parents make to curriculum under the First Amendment.

The Mahmoud v Taylor decision, which was issued June 27, held that parents have the right to opt out of curriculum that conflicts with their religious beliefs. The case involved a Maryland school district that had abandoned its opt-out policy due to an increase in such requests and resulting disruptions to classrooms. The district was later sued by parents for not allowing students to opt out of lessons using LGBTQ-themed storybooks that conflicted with the parents’ religious beliefs.

The case was the subject of ACSA’s Legislative Lunch Break on July 30, where education leaders asked questions about the implications for schools.

While this case involved books about gay marriage and gender identity, the ruling could apply to other materials outside of LGBTQ issues, said Amy Estrada, partner with AALRR, adding that the test would be whether parents consider the curriculum a burden to their religious rights.

However, the ruling does not preclude districts from using their adopted curriculum. “It’s clear you can continue teaching what you’re teaching, the case is about opting out individual students based on their religious beliefs,” Estrada said, adding that districts could present material in a more neutral manner that may yield fewer opt-outs.

Estrada said opt-out notices should be detailed about the curriculum and when students will be learning it, as opposed to a broad, general notice.

“I do have some trepidation about LEAs that are going to say, OK we’re going to give you one notice at the beginning of the year — it’s meant to be narrower than that,” she said.

Emaleigh Valdez, associate with AALRR, said the ruling does not provide details for districts on how to give notice, including factors like how far in advance notice needs to be given or by what method.

“There’s a lot more questions than answers here,” she said on the Legislative Lunch Break. “You really have to kind of configure that notice and opt-out procedure into something that can work for your district because the court did not give us clear guidelines on what this notice and opt out looks like.”

The ruling also lacks specifics on what constitutes interference with religious development, according to a recent client news brief from the law firm Lozano Smith.

“The opinion opens the door for parents to challenge neutral and generally applicable curricular policies, above and beyond LGBTQ+ issues, that have long been left to the expertise of local elected school boards and school administrators,” according to the article written by Sloan Simmons and Anna Wood. “While it will take time to fully understand the impact of the opinion, ramifications may include limitations on the ability of schools to teach a diverse curriculum. School districts should consider reviewing and updating their board policies to ensure compliance with the notice and opt-out concepts outlined by the Court in Mahmoud.”

Valdez said that more clarification will come as the ruling is tested in California and other state and federal courts with different sets of facts and district notification policies. Estrada recommended that districts have a system for communicating instruction to parents and that they inform teachers about the case.