2024 Term of Court:
The federal Constitution provides that Congress, our federal legislature, and our state legislatures “shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . ..”[1] In Mahmoud v. Taylor, US Sup.Ct.Slip Opinion of June 27, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held that that “Free Exercise Clause” likely prohibits public school boards from requiring its teachers to teach the acceptance of LGBTQ culture to elementary school children. The Court explained that the Free Exercise Clause, as previously interpreted by the Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), prohibits substantial interference by government with the religious upbringing that religiously sincere parents want to bestow on their children. The vote on the Court was 6-3, with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting. The dissenters argued that the Yoder Case was inapplicable to the case before the Court, and that the Constitution allows public school boards to require the teaching of civility to students in public elementary schools.
Comment: The Free Exercise Clause plainly does not say what the Court now says it says. Under the Free Exercise Clause as actually worded, our elected legislators may not “prohibit” anyone in the United States from engaging in a religious exercise of his or her own “free” choice—while under a system of law and order, no one is ever “free” to commit murder or mayhem. The Free Exercise Clause simply does not speak to governmental “interference” with religion, except for “interference” that realistically amounts to a “prohibition.” In this particular case, the public-school board’s “interference” with parental child rearing does not amount to a “prohibition” of any parent’s choice and use of any religious resources in his or her own child rearing efforts. The Yoder Case, striking down a law that required parents of the Amish faith to send their children to a public or private school in their locality until the children reach the age of 16, is clearly distinguishable from this case.
Dan D. Rhea
[1] U.S. Const., Amendments I and XIV (§1), explanatory bracket added.
RECENT RULINGS 