In January 2025, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving the constitutionality of inclusive education. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, a group of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, argue that their inability to opt their children out of instruction involving storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters constitutes a violation of their right to freely exercise their religion under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Since 2021, the U.S. has seen a dramatic increase in attacks on inclusive education, particularly content that addresses race, sexuality, and gender. “Parental rights” bills, for example, seek to increase parents’ ability to control their children’s access to information about race and racism, comprehensive sexuality education, and discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity. In 2022 alone, 26 states introduced 85 parental rights bills — six of which were signed into law.
The push by advocates and decision-makers to increase parental involvement in school curricula is part of a broader global trend. The “parental veto” or “pin parental” movement encompasses judicial and legislative efforts to grant parents veto power over their children’s education, particularly regarding content parents consider contrary to their ethical, moral, or religious beliefs. In 2018, Spain’s far-right party VOX introduced the first parental veto bill in Murcia, which allowed parents to veto their children’s participation in school activities that addressed sexuality education, gender diversity, and LGBTQ+ issues. Similar bills have been introduced in other parts of Spain (i.e., Andalusia and Madrid), Poland, Romania, Brazil, and various states in Mexico. These efforts have generated legal debates around how to balance parents’ rights against not only their children’s rights but also state obligations related to education, equality, and diversity.
While supporters of these measures argue that they protect parents’ rights to control their children’s education and their rights to religious liberty, critics contend that they infringe on children’s right to education and undermine the state’s responsibility to provide comprehensive and inclusive education. Thus far, courts in other countries have found parental veto laws to be unconstitutional. In March 2020, the Regional Superior Court in Murcia temporarily suspended the policy, ruling that education on gender diversity was fundamental to students’ development and could not be vetoed by parents. In the Mexican state of Aguascalientes, a district judge suspended a law that allowed parents to opt children out of specific educational programs, ruling it violated children’s rights to education and personal development and infringed upon the state’s responsibility to provide comprehensive education. The ruling, moreover, emphasized education’s role in promoting social equality, enabling access to fundamental rights, and providing scientific and objective information about sexual and reproductive health.
In other countries, like Chile and Peru, high courts have considered challenges to mandates requiring education to promote gender equality. In Chile, the legislators argued that a “non-sexist” education mandate infringed upon the “preferential right” of parents to educate their children, as well as their rights to religious freedom. Chile’s Constitutional Court, however, upheld the mandate as constitutional, reasoning that the “preferential right” of parents to educate their children does not extend to endorsing discriminatory or demeaning ideas — such as sexism — as this would contradict the fundamental purpose of education. Similarly, Peru’s Supreme Court ruled against a civil society organization that challenged the constitutionality of the country’s law requiring that the curricula in primary schools integrate a gender perspective. The Court stressed that educational policies on fundamental rights, such as gender identity, cannot be subject to parental approval.
The decisions from Peru, Mexico, and Spain’s courts are grounded in international human rights law and align with global standards that affirm countries’ obligation to provide “age-appropriate, comprehensive and inclusive sexual and reproductive health education” as part of the mandatory school curriculum. Such holistic education should cover gender equality, sexual diversity, sexual and reproductive health, and violence prevention, among other topics. Inclusive education promotes equality, combats discrimination, and advances young people’s rights to education and health. The decision from Chile’s high court also references international human rights principles, especially regarding women’s and girls’ right to be “educated free of stereotyped patterns of behavior and social and cultural practices based on concepts of inferiority or subordination.”
As countries around the world address the constitutionality of parental involvement in school curricula, the upcoming Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor presents a pivotal opportunity for the United States to align itself with high courts from around the world and protect the safety, health, and rights of young people throughout the country.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the O’Neill Institute.
