UNITED STATES — A new Supreme Court case could force all public schools in the country to adopt restrictions similar to what Florida once tried under its original “Don’t Say Gay” approach. The lawsuit, Mahmoud v. Taylor, involves a group of Muslim and Christian parents who claim they need advance notice—and an option to pull their children out—whenever certain books with LGBTQ characters are used in class.
Although these parents don’t specifically demand a total ban on talking about gay or transgender topics, the rule they propose would place such tough requirements on teachers and administrators that many schools might feel pressured to avoid these topics altogether.
Why this matters
Not long ago, Florida passed a law limiting teachers from discussing sexual orientation and gender identity in certain grades. Critics called it “Don’t Say Gay” because educators feared mentioning anything LGBTQ-related could get them into trouble.
A later settlement clarified that teachers may talk about the existence of gay people, but it also gave Florida the power to exclude figures like Harvey Milk from state history lessons.
Now, the Mahmoud case could expand that type of policy nationwide. The parents in this lawsuit say they have religious objections to books featuring LGBTQ themes and want to be notified if their children will see them, so they can opt out.
But to grant that request, the Supreme Court might have to create a rule forcing public schools to track every moment a teacher or student might discuss these issues. And if schools accidentally fail to alert the parents, they could face legal trouble.
The confusion about the facts
One challenge is that almost nobody knows what’s actually happening in the Maryland school district at the center of this case. The parents list seven books they claim were approved for use in class, but the school district says only five were approved. And both sides only agree on three specific titles.
On top of that, it’s not even clear how—or if—these books have actually been used. Did teachers hold lessons about them? Did kids even read them? The lower courts haven’t figured that out yet.
Despite these missing details, the Supreme Court has taken the case, which is unusual because courts typically want a clear factual record before making big decisions.
The legal issue: religion versus school policy
Under the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause, the government can’t coerce people to break their religious beliefs. If, for instance, a teacher forced a Christian or Muslim student to declare that gay relationships are never sinful, that would likely cross a constitutional line.
But these parents want something broader. They want the school to alert them before any classroom activity touches on homosexuality, gender identity, or anything they say conflicts with their beliefs. That way, they can remove their children from those discussions. If they win, it doesn’t end there—public schools would have to extend the same courtesy to any parent claiming any religious objection to almost any topic.
In the United States, treating all faiths equally is a constitutional requirement. That means if a school must notify these parents whenever an LGBTQ-themed book is used, then it must also notify other religious parents about anything those parents find problematic. In the past, people have objected on religious grounds to lessons about evolution, magic or fantasy novels, pacifism, and much more. Imagine the paperwork, emails, and phone calls needed to warn every parent about every lesson that might clash with someone’s faith.
The risk of a “Don’t Say Gay” on steroids
Even if the Supreme Court tried to limit its ruling to just these parents in Mahmoud, schools would still struggle to predict every classroom scenario involving LGBTQ topics.
What if a student randomly asks about a public figure who happens to be gay, or references a novel with gay characters for a book report? Would the teacher be required to stop class and contact parents?
That level of regulation would essentially silence spontaneous discussions, leading teachers to avoid these subjects altogether.
Teachers already juggle lesson plans, test prep, and student safety. Adding intense notification rules could push them to play it safe and never mention LGBTQ themes at all—just to avoid lawsuits.
Many critics say that’s exactly what a national “Don’t Say Gay” climate would look like: a chilling effect that discourages open discussion and diversity in the classroom.
Why the Court took up the case so soon
Normally, courts wait until facts are clear. They also want to see if the school actually did anything unconstitutional, such as forcing students to contradict their own religion. There’s no record that this happened here. Instead, the parents filed a lawsuit, and the Supreme Court’s conservative majority—often sympathetic to religious challenges—agreed to hear it right away.
In recent years, the Court has made it easier for people to claim religious exemptions from general laws. Often, these rulings favor conservative Christian viewpoints. Now, legal experts wonder if the justices will expand those rulings even further by siding with the parents in Mahmoud.
At this stage, no one knows exactly how the justices will rule. They might decide on a narrow fix that only addresses the specific Maryland situation, or they could deliver a sweeping judgment that reshapes how every public school in America handles religious objections. Observers also point out the possibility of a compromise that gives partial relief to the parents without imposing major changes on all classrooms.
For now, the nation’s highest court has a decision to make, and it could be massive. If the justices embrace the parents’ request, every public school could face enormous logistical hurdles—potentially leading to a classroom environment where teachers steer clear of LGBTQ issues altogether. Many argue that it’s premature to make such a wide-ranging choice before knowing if the Maryland district did anything truly unlawful.
Whatever happens, Mahmoud v. Taylor represents a major clash between religious objections and the right of schools to teach a diverse array of subjects. Ultimately, the Supreme Court could either allow the lower courts to sort out what really happened, or it could impose a far-reaching policy that might transform how schools handle discussions about gender, identity, and sexuality—in a way reminiscent of Florida’s strictest “Don’t Say Gay” proposals.
