Resources to Better Understand the Mahmoud v. Taylor SCOTUS Decision: Book Censorship News, August 15, 2025

Upon the release of the Supreme Court opinion in the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, I wrote at length about what the ruling did and did not mean. This isn’t a case about book banning. No books are forced to be removed or banned from schools or libraries. While book censorship will be an outcome of this ruling–we’ll see untold amounts of quiet censorship on the part of schools and educators related to the materials available and used in libraries and curriculum–this is a case about religious liberty and public education. It is a case about the applicability and interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

Mahmoud is unique in that it’s a case wherein the Supreme Court provided an injunction to the defendants as their lawsuit progresses in the lower courts. The 6-3 opinion will certainly be used by book banners “concerned parents” to begin opting-out of anything they wish to in public school curriculum under the guise of religious freedom. Many already have, repurposing the forms that they used to opt students out of masking during the height of COVID, to opt students out of vaccines, and to opt students out of the surveys they believe are damaging their students.

But the case itself isn’t broadly applicable, at least not yet.

One of the biggest concerns worth thinking about with Mahmoud is how it will be another tool in the arsenal to dismantle public education. We’ve seen several states push voucher schemes that allow public funding for public schools to be funneled into private institutions. Defendants in the case, one of whom was the president of the Montgomery County Moms for Liberty chapter, were unable or disinterested in sending their children to private schools, thus, they felt their rights to raise their children with specific religious views was hindered by the inclusion of LGBTQ+ positive books in curriculum without the ability to opt their children out. The Court’s majority says that: “It is no answer that parents remain free to place their children
in private school or to educate them at home. Public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot “condition” its “availability” on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.”

The same argument in reverse has been used on repeat to pass voucher schemes at the state level and advocate for “educational choice” by the current administration’s Department of Education. Just days after the decision in Mahmoud, Congress passed the president’s disastrous budget, which provides for a nationwide voucher program in 2027.

In many parts of the US, the new school year has already begun. In others, the school year will start in the next few weeks. Given that there are now more resources and discussions around the meaning and impact of Mahmoud than there were in the initial days after the ruling, it seems worth while to create a resource to help better understand what it does and does not mean.

Statement from New York State Education Leaders on Supreme Court Decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor

This statement has two really important points:

• “Exposure to ideas with which one disagrees is not coercion; it is the foundation of a pluralistic society and core to the mission of our public schools.”
• Mahmoud provides temporary relief to a single school district, which is Montgomery County. As such, it does not impact the decisions made in other states and in other districts.

Statement from the California Department of Education

The statement from California’s Department of Education is a little more cautious in its statement than that from New York. But California’s guidance emphasizes how the opinion is specific to Montgomery County, Maryland, schools and this specific group of religious parents. The state does not say there won’t be ramifications in California public schools but that what those look like remains a big question–and will be something local educational agencies will need to consider.

• “Under the specific facts presented in Mahmoud — an elementary classroom curriculum that incorporated LGBTQ+ themed storybooks — the Supreme Court instructed the lower court to issue the preliminary injunction requiring such a notice and opt out option pending final resolution of the litigation.”
• “[T]he ruling is based on highly fact-specific circumstances, warranting the development of locally determined implementation based on the facts unique to each school; the ruling provides little or no direction for implementation by schools as to very critical matters”
• Repetition of “fact-specific” throughout the statement is pretty important–this isn’t applicable in a broad manner (i.e., schools don’t need to create opt-out forms for LGBTQ+ content, diverse content, etc., at this point because the facts in this case are applicable to this case…and again, this case is about an injunction, not about application).

5-4 Pod: Mahmoud v. Taylor

The 5-4 podcast covers both contemporary and historic decisions by the Supreme Court. The Mahmoud v. Taylor is especially good, exploring the facts of the case, as well as the repercussions of the decision. Of note, this episode articulates the historic cases upon which the majority built their argument and why Yoder, a case about whether Amish kids in Wisconsin needed to continue going to school beyond eighth grade, per state law, is an inappropriate parallel case to Mahmoud. (Also, they’re not afraid to talk about the ways in which grown adult justices have showcased their illiteracy on the subject of picture books).

5Qs: Herzog on LGBTQ+ Opt-Outs in Mahmoud v. Taylor Supreme Court Decision

This Q+A post from the University of Michigan Law department with one of its law professors explains the applicability of Mahmoud and how the case, were it to succeed in the lower courts, could pop back up to the Supreme Court in a manner that would make it a national standard. Herzog dives into the ways in which the Court has been asymmetric in where and how they interpret and apply legal precedent to accommodate right-wing policy.

• “When it comes to free exercise, they think it’s obvious that the government may, and indeed sometimes must, not apply the regular rule to the religious claimant. When it comes to establishment, they think it’s obvious that the government must apply the regular rule to the religious claimant.”
• “The majority says—I’m not literally quoting—“Sure, the government cannot compel you to send your child to a public school. But let’s get real; homeschooling and private schooling are expensive.” This newfound solicitude for financial constraints is a stunner.  When there was still a constitutional right to abortion, the court didn’t think that the Hyde Amendment, banning the use of federal funds for abortion, was a constitutional problem. The right to freedom of the press does not mean the government has to buy you a printer. Quite generally, constitutional law has worried about obstacles the government throws in your path to try to stop you from doing something. It simply hasn’t worried that maybe you haven’t got the money to do what you want to. Yes, the government requires you to educate your kids. But so, too, it can require you to get health care, and that doesn’t really change anything.”
• His final remarks are precisely what we’ll see happen, especially over the next year: “In the meantime, suppose you’re a prudently litigation-averse lawyer advising a public school board. I’m afraid the prudent thing for you to advise is, get all the LBGTQ+ stuff out of the schools, pronto. No one actually thinks that the free exercise clause conjures up a social world in which everyone is straight, and boys are simply boys and girls are simply girls, and…. But on the ground, we’ll see at least some of that.”

There are certainly other resources out there, and we know that in states and districts where rampant discrimination and book bans have been underway since the beginning of this rise in literary censorship, Mahmoud is a permission slip to continue with fervor. But it’s also crucial to understand what the decision actually says and where and how that’s applicable at the public school district level.

So what now? Understanding what Mahmoud is about and what it actually says is crucial; take the painful efforts to explain these nuances when it comes up, and use that knowledge to advocate on behalf of all students in public schools. Continue to advocate for inclusive classroom lessons and materials. Continue to show up to board meetings and demand your voice be heard. At this point, whatever your religious beliefs may be–or even if you have them at all–really consider the ways in which this becomes an opportunity to advocate for your beliefs on positive representation of inclusivity be heard and met. Again, the burden of this opinion will fall heaviest in those places where such fights have been going on for years.

Continue to be a public education advocate, and continue to be a voice for those to be most hurt by this decision: queer kids and children with queer families who’ve been told that their rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are less worthy than their “traditionally religious” peers’. We cannot let what is a narrow ruling, albeit painful and discriminatory, be what turns people off from continuing to fight for the rights of all, including and especially young people.

It is likely we will see an actual book censorship case make its way to the Supreme Court. The details and outcome in the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Little et al. v. Llano County et al. are ripe for debate at the federal level. Even if that case is appealed to the Supreme Court, though, there’s no guarantee the Justices will take it. It is a very different case than Mahmoud and would present a very different opportunity to continue wading into so-called “culture war” issues that have dominated political discourse since the end of the first Trump administration.

Book Censorship News: August 15, 2025

Earlier this week, a slew of local newspapers shut down when the owner announced financial problems. The disappearance of local news has been one of the many factors which have facilitated the unprecedented growth in book bans and library attacks, as there are few outlets reporting on stories happening in their own communities. The closure of more papers will further impact the information made available.

• Sumner County Libraries (TN) once again took up the issue of banning all books “with sexual or transgender content” from the public library. The measure once again failed to pass.
• Ballotpedia put together a map of all the states with laws related to school library materials.
• This is a great profile of Kate Selvitelli, a member of South Carolina’s DAYLO, a youth literacy group that has been fighting book bans for years.
• Oh, a far-right school superintendent in Maricopa County Schools (AZ) appointed a MAGA cultist to the school board? Shocked. Really shocked.
• Fort Worth, Texas, schools may see their district taken over by the state. Recall that when the state did this in Houston, they removed libraries and turned them into makeshift student detention centers.
• Despite people with actual library expertise applying to be on the Lafayette Parish Public Library board (LA), a pastor was appointed instead.
• After a rash of bomb threats in 2023 and 2024, Illinois legislators voted to pass funding that would allow public and academic libraries to increase their security measures.
• These are all of the books banned in Spencer, Iowa, schools, following the state’s book banning law.
• “Texans spent a staggering $112 million last year to manage culturally divisive conflicts in schools — money that should help support students and teachers.” Whew. Lots of money to spend on fighting and/or defending rampant bigotry.
• This is a handy guide on how education laws are made and how you can have an impact.
• “Davidson County School [NC] Board member Mur DeJonge is calling for several books to be removed from Davidson County Schools libraries that he says “can only be described as pornographic.” At the school board’s recent monthly meeting, he read a statement announcing his intent to try to have several books removed from elementary, middle and high schools.” So the board member made clear his purpose for being there is to just ban books. Cool.
• The vast majority of books challenged in Lee, Collier, and Charlotte County Schools (FL) last year were returned to shelves. What a significant waste of time, energy, and resources.
• Boulder Valley Schools (CO) is the first school in Colorado to officially address the realities of Mahmoud v. Taylor. LGBTQ+ positively-affirming books will remain on shelves but parents will have the ability to opt students out of any curriculum. As noted above, this is the conservative and conservative-approved approach to the Supreme Court case: compliance in advance.
• Because democracy is still often behind a paywall, you can’t read this story in full. But it’ll be interesting to see what happens as the records of a Christian group that has been pushing members to complain about LGBTQ+ books in Crawford County, Arkansas, come to light.
• “As residents of Jackson County continue to rail against commissioners’ June vote to withdraw from the Fontana Regional Library system over LGBTQ content — a decision made without a plan, without a clear understanding of library operations and without reliable financial projections — questions are growing more pointed, but the minority that supports withdrawal continues to spread misinformation about key aspects of library operations.” Recall this story out of North Carolina of a library pulling out of a consortium that provides access to even more books to its users. This one began over the fact residents in Jackson County could–gasp–get books that their board doesn’t approve of morally from other libraries nearby. Control, baby.
• Officials in Elizabeth, Colorado, schools, say the books that were banned in the district and ordered to be returned are on shelf for the start of the new school year. Here’s the latest in that story.
• The Hart Area Public Library Board of Trustees (MI) will not be banning Gender Queer, despite challenges to the title.
• Conservatives have taken over Maryland’s Calvert County school board and have begun passing policies that align with their bigotry. Even though Maryland has an anti-book ban law, expect to see some library and classroom book related stuff pop up here…especially in light of Mahmoud.
• “The Wyoming Legislature is considering a bill that librarians from across the state say will eliminate young adult and teenage sections from public libraries, calling it unnecessary and harmful to the state’s youth. Additionally, they say it could bring an end to some local libraries if they are not in compliance and rack up the associated $50,000 fines for violation of the bill, if passed into law.” Completely gutting libraries of YA and teen sections isn’t new, but passing a law to do so is a new one.