We have the right to live our faith openly in public life — and the American way is to extend that right to everyone.
We have the right to live our faith openly in public life — and the American way is to extend that right to everyone.
A s fireworks light the sky this Fourth of July, Americans will gather to honor the freedoms we hold sacred. The latest Supreme Court term offered fresh reason to believe that one of those freedoms — religious liberty — remains strong and secure. Although other cases may have dominated headlines, this was a remarkable term for religion, with the Court signaling renewed commitment to religious pluralism and to the principle that Americans shouldn’t have to check their faith at the door when they enter public life.
Look no further than Mahmoud v. Taylor. In that case, the Court handed down a historic victory for the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children. The dispute arose when parents in Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools wanted to excuse their elementary-school children from storybooks that pushed extreme ideology regarding gender and sexuality. Some of these books — and the school board’s own instructional guidance — taught children as young as three that a decision to transition their gender doesn’t have to “make sense,” and that doctors only “guess[ed]” a child’s sex at birth and the children should go think about choosing pronouns. That’s a far cry from Goodnight Moon or Green Eggs and Ham.
In 2023, the school board revoked parental notice and opt-outs for the books. A diverse coalition of religious parents — represented by my firm, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — sued in federal court. The lower courts denied the parents relief, leaving them without the rights afforded to parents in nearly every school district in America.
In an important victory for both liberty and common sense, the Supreme Court ruled for the parents. The Justices acknowledged that raising children is a core part of religious exercise. And they rejected the idea that parents forfeit their ability to control a child’s religious upbringing whenever they use public schools. As a result, our school system will be more pluralistic and welcoming to all.
This ruling is crucial for American families. With nearly 50 million children attending public schools nationwide, Mahmoud stands as a stark reminder that those parents do not surrender their rights at the schoolhouse doors. They retain the freedom to guide the moral and religious upbringing of their children, even while participating fully in public life. In an increasingly diverse society, that’s critical — especially for minority faith communities.
Religious pluralism was also central to the Court’s unanimous decision in Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin. There, Wisconsin had taken the absurd view that Catholic Charities wasn’t religious enough to qualify for a religious tax exemption because it serves all people, regardless of faith, and doesn’t try to convert those it serves. Writing for the entire Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected Wisconsin’s approach as a textbook First Amendment violation. At a time of deep polarization, it’s significant that justices across the ideological spectrum agreed that government cannot pick religious winners and losers.
Not every religious liberty case brought clear answers this term. The Court split 4–4 in St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond, leaving open the critical question of whether religious groups can participate equally with all other applicants in state charter school programs. The issue remains unresolved and is likely to return to the Court in future terms.
The Court also declined, at least for now, to review Apache Stronghold v. United States. In that case, the federal government and a Chinese-owned mining company plan to build a copper mine that would destroy Oak Flat, a sacred site central to the Apache’s religious ceremonies and identity. So far, the Court has not intervened. A pending petition for rehearing offers the Justices another chance to consider the important protections for Native religious practices. With the Court having reaffirmed in Mahmoud that religious liberty doesn’t end at the door of public schools, it is not hard to imagine the Supreme Court or lower courts vindicating the rights of Apaches to continue their centuries-old religious practices on their ancestral lands.
Taken as a whole, this term brought real gains for religious liberty, even as important questions remain unresolved. The Court’s rulings remind us that religious freedom is not just about what happens in church on Sundays; it’s about the right to live our faith openly in public life — and the American way is to extend that right to everyone. This Independence Day, that’s a freedom worth celebrating — and defending.