Massachusetts Federal Court applies Mahmoud v. Taylor: Considerations for Massachusetts Schools Regarding Parental Opt-Out Requests

On December 30, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts applied, for the first time, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor to a Massachusetts public school district. In Alan L. v. Lexington Public Schools, the court granted a parent’s motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the parent was likely to prevail on his claim that the district violated the parent’s First Amendment free-exercise rights by failing to provide him adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to opt his kindergarten-aged child out of classroom materials addressing sexual orientation and gender identity that purportedly conflicted with his sincerely held religious beliefs.[1]

Background and the Court’s Ruling

In October 2025, the plaintiff (the “Parent”) filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that during the 2025-2026 school year, his requests to opt his child out of “DEI curriculum,” including material that addressed “LGBTQ identities or lifestyles,” were dismissed by Lexington Public Schools (the “District”) as overly broad and that the District wrongfully required him to resubmit his opt-out requests with more specific information or to review the curricular materials with the district. The Parent moved for a preliminary injunction to compel the District to provide the requested notice and opt-outs.

Relying on Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court held that the Parent was likely to succeed on his claim that the District’s actions burdened his free-exercise rights.[2] To note, the court considered only the issue of LGBTQ+ content in its assessment of the preliminary injunction, not content concerning race or gender generally. As in Mahmoud, the court emphasized that parents have constitutional rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children and that this right may be infringed upon when public-school instruction substantially interferes with or threatens the religious beliefs parents seek to instill, particularly for young, impressionable students.[3]

The court concluded that several of the books at issue were likely to impose such a burden under the framework articulated in Mahmoud.[4] Importantly, the court rejected the argument that only explicitly didactic materials trigger constitutional concerns, stating that even materials conveying a “subtle” moral message may burden parental religious exercise.[5] However, the court also noted that “it is an open question whether a book that neither directly nor ‘subtl[y]’ takes a position on an issue of sexuality or gender, but instead merely features a depiction of a gay or lesbian couple, can constitute a substantial burden on plaintiff’s free-exercise rights under Mahmoud.”

The court acknowledged that the District has a compelling interest in avoiding classroom disruption but determined that the District was unlikely to demonstrate that denying notice and opt-out rights to the Parent was appropriate to serve that interest, particularly where the District already permitted religious opt-outs in other contexts and had not shown that providing notice and accommodations would be sufficiently unworkable.[6]

Key Takeaways for Massachusetts Schools

While Massachusetts law and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (“DESE”) regulations continue to require public schools to foster respect for the civil and human rights of all individuals, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, the Alan L. decision demonstrates that schools must carefully navigate parental requests for religious accommodations following Mahmoud.

Although DESE has not yet issued guidance interpreting the Alan L. decision, DESE and the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General issued joint guidance in the aftermath of the Mahmoud decision, indicating that “K-12 schools should continue to use an inclusive, age-appropriate curriculum, which can include topics like race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and religion. There are significant, well-established benefits to representing students’ identities in the curriculum… Massachusetts state laws and regulations continue to prohibit discrimination against any particular group in instruction or curriculum.” Nevertheless, Massachusetts public schools should anticipate increased scrutiny of curriculum notice practices and opt-out procedures, particularly at the elementary school level.

In light of this decision, we continue to recommend that school districts and public charter schools consider the following actions:

• Adopt a Curriculum Opt-Out Policy and Grievance Procedures and include them in the school’s student and employee handbooks.
• Ensure that staff know to direct any requests to opt out of the curriculum to the appropriate school administrator.
• Document the basis of any parental challenge to school materials in writing and include a copy of the opt-out request and documentation describing any actions taken in response to such request in the student record. Forms can be helpful to streamline the process, but a school should not require a parent/guardian to complete a form as a condition for consideration of an opt-out request.
• Consult with relevant school personnel (which might include the principal/head of school, curriculum director, teacher, etc.) to review any opt-out requests, the contested curriculum, the objectives of the curriculum, and the coordination and any burden of permitting an opt-out or alternative assignment(s).
• If an opt-out is determined appropriate and reasonable, prepare alternative assignment(s) for the student. Document actions taken in the student record.
• If an opt-out is not determined appropriate or reasonable, document the rationale for that determination, provide written notice to the parent/guardian, and include that documentation in the student record.
• Consult with the school’s legal counsel if you are unsure of how to respond to a curriculum opt-out request.

Please reach out to attorneys Bettina Toner (btoner@kb-law.com) or Eric Jordan with any questions or requests you may have regarding parental challenges to public school curriculum or for assistance with the development of relevant opt-out policies and grievance procedures.

Krokidas & Bluestein LLP's Education Law Practice provides a full array of advice and guidance to charter schools and other education entities on a wide range of legal matters including student discipline, special education, employment, governance, tax, regulatory and compliance matters, real estate, financing, and litigation.

[1] Alan L. v. Lexington Public Schools, No. 1:25-cv-13047-FDS (D. Mass. Dec. 30, 2025).
[2] Id. at *16.
[3] Id. at *18-22.
[4] Id. at *18.
[5] Id. at *17-18.
[6] Id. at *19.