Keeping the Curriculum: Maintaining Judicial Deference to Educators Post Mahmoud v. Taylor

Abstract

One of the most contentious fronts of the ongoing culture war in the United States has been over the representation and rights LGBTQ+ individuals. This battle has been perhaps no more pronounced than in the halls of public schools. In the 2025 opinion Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Court issued its first opinion on that on-going battle in the context of schools. Eschewing the Court’s longstanding reluctance to dictate curricula decisions to public schools, the Mahmoud Court has recognized that parents have a right to receive notice of and opt their children out of curricula that may burden the practice of their faith. 

Unbounded, this right could pose an administrative nightmare for the nation’s public schools. The myriad of religions in the United States could lead to practically any curricula burdening the faith of a child’s parent. Thus, taken to its logical end, Mahmoud could grant a heckler’s veto to each and every parent, inviting an additional layer of bargaining over and above the political process by which most school curricula are developed.

This dire vision need not come to pass. The Court’s opinion rests not solely on a free exercise analysis, but also an implicit substantive due process analysis related to the fundamental rights of parents. The limitations of parental rights, as articulated by the Court, can aid lower courts in the formation of a jurisprudence post Mahmoud that remains deferential to local educators in the selection of public-school curriculum. Additionally, the limitations on both parental authority and school authority in relation to the rights of children could allow for limited involvement of children in the ongoing conversation of what education the child would most like to receive.

Suggested Citation

Wesley Murphy, Keeping the Curriculum: Maintaining Judicial Deference to Educators Post Mahmoud v. Taylor, Mich. St. L. Rev. Forum (Sept. 20, 2026).