In what could be the most consequential Supreme Court term for religious families in decades, two landmark cases will determine parents’ ability to protect their children from harmful content and ideology in both public schools and online spaces.
Both Mahmoud v. Taylor and Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton address a fundamental question: Will parents maintain their God-given right and responsibility to protect their children and guide their moral development?
Battle for Parental Rights in Schools
The case of Mahmoud v. Taylor involves an increasingly urgent challenge for Christian families: public schools introducing young children to concepts about gender and sexuality that directly contradict biblical teaching. The case arose when the board of education in Montgomery County, Maryland, eliminated parental notification and opt-out provisions for books promoting gender transition and sexuality concepts to children. This was a right parents had been promised when the curriculum was first introduced in 2022.
Will parents maintain their God-given right and responsibility to protect their children’s innocence and guide their moral development?
The school district’s new policy requires all elementary students, including children as young as 3 and 4 years old, to participate in lessons that promote contested views about gender and sexuality. As the public-interest law firm Becket points out, the school materials have preschoolers search for images from a word list that includes terms like “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBT+ activist and sex worker. One book explicitly challenges parental authority by encouraging elementary school children to trust their own judgment about gender identity over their parents’ guidance.
When hundreds of parents—representing a diverse coalition of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim families—voiced concerns at school board meetings, their religious objections were not only dismissed but met with hostility. Board members publicly accused these parents of promoting xenophobia and compared them to “white supremacists.”
The situation highlights a growing tension between public education and religious freedom. As Eric Baxter, vice president at Becket, explains, “The fundamental task of parents is to protect their children’s innocence while gradually preparing them to navigate challenging cultural issues from a biblical perspective. Forcing young children to confront complex ideological concepts about gender and sexuality before they have the maturity to process them doesn’t just violate parental rights—it can cause genuine spiritual and emotional harm.”
The case’s implications extend beyond Montgomery County. The Fourth Circuit Court’s ruling that there’s no religious burden because parents can “discuss the topics” with their children afterward fundamentally misunderstands both child development and religious exercise. For many faithful families, shielding young children from premature exposure to concepts that contradict their religious beliefs represents not just a preference but a sacred obligation. The Supreme Court’s decision could determine whether public schools nationwide can compel young children to receive instruction that conflicts with their family’s deeply held religious convictions about human identity and sexuality.
Challenge of Protecting Children
While Mahmoud addresses the crucial fight to protect children within school walls, another equally pressing battle is taking place in the digital sphere. The court will consider the case of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which addresses protecting children online. Texas House Bill 1181 requires websites that distribute “sexual material harmful to minors” to implement age verification systems before granting access—a measure that recognizes how the internet has created unprecedented challenges for parents.
The age verification requirement can be met through various means, including submitting government identification or biometric data. While pornography industry groups have challenged the law’s constitutionality, Texas maintains that the state has a compelling interest in keeping harmful content away from minors.
The Supreme Court’s oral arguments on January 15, 2025, suggested broad agreement among the justices that pornography poses significant dangers to children and that previous attempts at protection through content filtering and parental controls have proven insufficient. Several conservative justices questioned whether strict constitutional scrutiny should apply, noting that adults retain access to these websites while reasonable protections for minors are put in place.
The case’s implications extend far beyond Texas. Eighteen other states have passed similar laws, recognizing that parents need strong legal frameworks to help them. The Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), along with other religious organizations, filed an amicus brief supporting Texas’s law, emphasizing both the moral imperative to protect children from pornography and the state’s legitimate role in providing such protection.
For Christian families striving to raise children in an increasingly complex digital world, the outcome of this case could determine whether states can provide meaningful assistance in their efforts. A ruling is expected by June 2025, potentially setting a precedent that could strengthen child protection measures nationwide.
Why These Cases Matter
These cases represent a crucial opportunity to reinforce parents’ fundamental right and sacred duty to protect their children’s moral and spiritual development. The stakes are particularly high given children’s vulnerability. As the legal brief in Mahmoud notes, elementary school students lack the maturity to process complex ideological concepts that may undermine their developing faith and values. Similarly, young people’s increasing internet access makes age verification requirements an essential tool for parenting.
Parents need strong legal frameworks to help them protect their children from harmful content.
These cases also represent a defining moment for Christian parents: Scripture tells us that children are a heritage from the Lord (Ps. 127:3), and parents bear the sacred responsibility to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). The court’s decisions could profoundly affect parents’ ability to fulfill this divine calling, both in public education and in our increasingly digital world.
At their core, these cases transcend conventional legal debates about constitutional rights. They address the timeless obligation of parents to safeguard their children’s innocence—a responsibility that has become increasingly challenging. The unprecedented exposure of young minds to harmful content and ideology, both in classrooms and online, threatens not only children’s spiritual and moral formation but also their fundamental understanding of truth, identity, and human nature.
The Gospel Coalition