Protect The 1st Files Amicus in Mahmoud

​Protect The 1st is proud to announce that we have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing Mahmoud v. Taylor case (formerly Mahmoud v. McKnight). Our brief strongly defends the rights of parents to protect their children from mandatory instruction on gender and sexuality that conflicts with their religious beliefs. In collaboration with the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty and the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team, we argue that the imposition of such curriculum without an opt-out provision violates core First Amendment rights.
 
This case presents a fundamental question: can public schools burden parents’ religious exercise by compelling elementary school children to participate in lessons on gender and sexuality without giving families the ability to opt out? The right to direct the upbringing of children has long been established as a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, dating back to Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Wisconsin v. Yoder. Our brief emphasizes that these precedents should apply here, where the state's agenda contradicts parents’ most deeply held convictions.
 
The situation in Montgomery County, Maryland, has sparked outrage among religious communities. What began with the introduction of 22 “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts has turned into a battleground for parental rights. These texts include material that many families find inappropriate for young children, yet the school district denies any possibility of opting out. The brief highlights that teachers are instructed to tell students that “at birth doctors merely ‘guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts.’” Such teachings directly conflict with many faiths, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, which hold clear beliefs about sexuality and gender.
 
Our brief warns of the “cataclysmic consequences” that will arise if parents lose the right to teach their children in accordance with their own religious and moral frameworks. The manipulation of a "captive and vulnerable audience"—children in public schools—amounts to an unconstitutional burden on parental rights. No school district has the right to force-feed children views on sexuality and gender that contradict the moral teachings of the home. The stakes are high: this is about more than sex education; it’s about whether the state can undermine the very foundation of moral and religious instruction in the home.
 
The Fourth Circuit’s decision to deny that a religious burden exists in these circumstances shows a troubling trend. Similar rulings in multiple circuits leave millions of parents without protection against forced instruction on sensitive matters like gender and sexuality. Religious families are left with no choice but to tolerate indoctrination, pay for private school, homeschool their children, or risk legal penalties. We are asking the Supreme Court to correct this error and restore the constitutional protections that prevent the state from intruding on the family’s role in educating children.
 
Our work in this case is part of a broader effort to safeguard First Amendment freedoms for all. Whether Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or non-religious, parents should have the right to determine the values their children are exposed to—particularly on issues as contentious as sexuality and gender. As our brief concludes, "the time to decide the question presented—and thereby prevent these harms—is now." PT1st looks forward to further developments in this case.