The “Right” to Censor Books, Another Made-Up Doctrine of the Roberts Court

The Supreme Court is out of control in so many ways, and this is yet another example of its assault on the separation of church and state.

Jul 09, 2025

What the Court Ruled in the Mahmoud v. Taylor Case

One of the recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court’s partisan majority that has received less attention than warranted is the Court’s dictate to school boards that parents can censor the books available in curricula taught in public schools.

If this were a normal Supreme Court that was applying long-standing precedents with impartiality, the plaintiffs would have lost. That’s what happened in the lower courts, where the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit blocked the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction based on a finding that their religious freedom was not unconstitutionally burdened by books that show inclusion of LGBTQ people. But the current U.S. Supreme Court – the Roberts Court – is not a normal court. It is a captured court that is arrogantly rewriting legal precedents to advance its agenda.

Of course, it was Samuel Alito who wrote the opinion in the 6-3 ruling in that case, called Mahmoud v. Taylor. Although Alito claimed he was not embracing a right to censor the books taught in public schools, that is the effect – and it will cause massive disruption to teaching in public schools across the country in order to accommodate the demands of individual parents. In a nutshell, Alito and his fellow Republican appointees have just decreed that random parents with no expertise in education can dictate which books their kids read in schools and demand that their children opt out of lessons on equality and inclusion, just because they assert the materials violate their religion.

Before this ruling, public schools were not required to create bespoke curricula tailored to the demands of individual parents, with one significant exception: the tradition of allowing parents to opt-out their kids out of Sex Ed. Personally, I think that exception should never have been allowed. Children should be taught age-appropriate information about human biology, and teens should learn about the science of sexual reproduction and the risks of pregnancy and disease from sexual activity. However, this Supreme Court ruling at hand goes even beyond that ill-advised cowering to parental demands for ignorance.

This new dictate by John Roberts’ right-wing faction of the Supreme Court treats public schools as if they are the private fiefdoms of parents to dictate what their children are taught. It is true that two passages in the Old Testament book of Leviticus condemn gay sex and even call for gay people to be put to death, but that is not the law of the land in the U.S. because America is and, per our founding documents, never should be a theocracy. That religious text also calls for those who commit adultery to be put to death – I’m sure there are even presidents and countless politicians who reject such language, even from the Bible, as it would put their heads on the chopping block. It also demands the murder of people who commit blasphemy, a fancy word for cursing.

Where Will It End?

And this all raises the question: What will happen when some white supremacist parents claim a religious right to opt out from American history lessons that teach the evils of slavery? I mention this because the Ten Commandments make it a sin to covet thy neighbor’s wife, the animals he owns, and his slaves. Sometimes, that language is whitewashed as “manservant,” even though related passages make it quite clear that in that period, under proto-biblical rule, crimes against people who were enslaved were treated as lesser crimes with lesser punishments. Although some abolitionists cited the Bible to support their moral opposition to slavery, some Southerners also cited the Bible in defense of what is clearly morally indefensible – the enslavement of other human beings – no matter what some passage of ancient religious text may seek to recognize, normalize, or justify.

And what about parents demanding that their kids not be taught the science about the actual age of the universe because some religions assert that the earth is only a few thousand years old, despite well-established carbon dating of rocks, dinosaur fossils, and other evidence?

If parents want a bespoke curriculum that caters to their personal religious beliefs, they can send their kids to religious schools that, under other dictates of this Roberts Court, now have greater access to our tax dollars to subsidize that indoctrination. Parents who want to maximize control can also choose to homeschool.

The Dark Money and Influence That Made This Possible

There’s more to the story of what happened in the Mahmoud case than even just its direct impact on public schools. There are deep and longstanding ties between SCOTUS puppeteer Leonard Leo and the Becket Fund that curated this litigation by recruiting parents of different religions to assail the Montgomery County schools. There is the flotilla of amicus briefs, as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has called phenomena like this, many of which were submitted by groups that have received funding from … Leonard Leo. There’s the reality of Leo’s singular role in capturing the Supreme Court, with the help of a few super-rich men, in order to reverse a century of legal precedents like those respecting the separation of church and state, as well as abortion rights and more.

As the defendants noted in their response to the ruling: “Although not surprised, we are disappointed in today’s ruling. This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system. It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community. Montgomery County Public Schools remains a welcoming and inclusive school system that embraces and celebrates each and every one of our students. We will maintain an environment where all students feel valued and supported…. MCPS will continue to have inclusive books, which reflect the rich diversity of the students and families that we serve in Montgomery County.”

I hope every school district in the country finds a way to continue to support our diverse American society and is not chilled by Alito’s dictates on behalf of the Leo faction of the Court, but the adverse consequences of this ruling will be substantial and far-reaching.

We have a lot of work to do in the years ahead to reverse the regressive course of rulings that the captured Roberts Court is decreeing, but one thing we cannot do is simply to give in or give up.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in this case (starting at page 71 of the pdf)
- In it, she noted that: “Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators. That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now.”
- If you care about these issues, I would urge you to read her full dissent, which includes images from some of the targeted books.

The amicus brief submitted by the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers
- In this brief they rightfully argue that “The Constitution does not recognize mere exposure to ideas as an actionable burden on religion” because it does not. These arguments were shared by other filers like the PEN America Center, the Authors Guild, the Interfaith Alliance, and others.

And, of course, the U.S. Constitution.

Advertise in this newsletter

Do you or your company want to support COURIER’s mission and showcase your products or services to an aligned audience of 190,000+ subscribers at the same time? Contact advertising@couriernewsroom.com for more information.