School district opts out of parental rights

One children’s book recommended for schools in Sunnyvale, Calif., details how a puppy finds intersex flags, drag queens, and underwear at an LGBTQ pride parade. Another book alters the lyrics “The wheels on the bus go round and round” to “The hips on the drag queen go swish, swish, swish.” A third shares the story of a young girl, Penelope, who says, “I don’t feel like a boy. I AM a boy.”

These are a sampling of the books to which Sunnyvale School District officials are threatening to expose Justin and Rose Taylor’s third-grade son and first-grade daughter. The parents have repeatedly asked to opt out of these and other sexuality and gender ideology curricula, but officials have flatly refused them.

In a federal lawsuit filed last week, the Taylors contend the denial violates their religious and parental rights. Sunnyvale’s actions are at odds with a landmark Supreme Court ruling that cemented these rights in a nearly identical case, the parents say.

“Our children are the most cherished part of our lives,” the Taylors said in a statement. “We know and love them best and should be the ones deciding when and how they learn about sensitive topics regarding sexuality and gender.”

The Taylors, who are members of the Latter-day Saints religion, said Sunnyvale school district’s lessons conflict with their beliefs. The district, comprising eight elementary schools and two middle schools in the heart of Silicon Valley, promotes “diverse” sexual and gender identities through an LGBTQ teaching guide.

For instance, the policy recommends teachers offer history lessons that contradict the traditional definitions of family. Health and science lessons should instruct on “gender identity and sexual orientation in a comprehensive and inclusive way,” the guide counsels. Even math lessons are affected, as the guide states that teachers should “use problems that relate to marriage equality, gender-neutral bathrooms, and LGBTQ+ rights to demonstrate mathematical concepts such as statistics, probability, and geometry.”

The guidance also encourages Sunnyvale teachers to read LGBTQ-affirming children’s books, like Pride Puppy!, to students.

In September 2025, the Taylors asked if their children could be excused from any instruction that conflicted with the family’s religious beliefs, such as these lessons and storybooks. The family pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision months earlier in Mahmoud v. Taylor. There, the high court found that a Maryland school district wrongly barred a multi-faith group of religious parents from opting their kids out of similar materials.

While Sunnyvale district officials didn’t issue an official response to the Taylors, a staff member provided the family with a form that listed various opt-out options in October 2025. A month later, district officials directed school librarians not to “check out material that includes LGBTQ+ or Gender Identity material” to the Taylor children.

But after months without giving a firm yes or no to the Taylors’ request, district officials denied their opt-out application in February 2026. Officials said the opt-outs didn’t align with Sunnyvale’s “core instructional framework” and its “commitment to a unified curriculum.” They added that LGBTQ+ instruction was not optional for students.

Sunnyvale officials added that the Mahmoud decision merely “addressed a specific set of facts in another state,” and did not create a “general or automatic right for parents to opt their children out of required curriculum.” Mahmoud does not supersede California’s own educational laws, they added.

Attorneys representing the Taylors sent a form letter to the school district, again emphasizing the family’s rights under Mahmoud. Sunnyvale acknowledged the letter but maintained its denial, leading to last week’s lawsuit.

At one point, Sunnyvale seemed to understand how Mahmoud applied to it, the Taylors argued in the lawsuit. In August 2025, Sunnyvale hosted a governance meeting to discuss its effect. The following month, the school board approved a resolution reaffirming the district’s commitment to teach on “LGBTQIA+ history, disability visibility, multilingual experiences, and culturally responsive instruction” across all grade levels. But the resolution noted that a legal right to opt out of these lessons “may exist.”

“But Sunnyvale abruptly flipped its position, making this case necessary,” the lawsuit alleges. “[The school] cannot show that forcing all children to participate in the LGBTQ+ curriculum is the only way to teach inclusion and civility toward all individuals.” The lawsuit added that Sunnyvale’s school district offers parents opt-outs from other areas of instruction, such as instructions on “human sexuality.”

WORLD reached out to Sunnyvale School District for comment but did not receive a response prior to publication.

The Taylors plan soon to file a motion for a temporary ruling against the school district, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the family. The parents want to cement that they have the final say on how their children are educated, said Eric Baxter, an attorney at Becket.

While Sunnyvale School District contends that Mahmoud solely applied to Maryland, not California, Supreme Court rulings apply across the country, Baxter pointed out.

Sunnyvale isn’t the only school district attempting to work around Mahmoud, Baxter added. In September 2025, Sen. Ted Cruz called out Seattle Public Schools for openly defying the Supreme Court’s ruling. The school system said it does not offer the option to opt students out of “learning about particular identities or groups of people.”

In October, a Christian parent sued Lexington Public Schools in Massachusetts for denying a similar opt-out request. A U.S. District Court later issued a temporary ruling in favor of the parent. “A win here could kind of cement the fact that this obligation [for opt-outs] applies to school districts nationwide,” Baxter said.

Sunnyvale’s case is a “cut and dry” application of Mahmoud, said Christian Edmonds, a constitutional law expert at Regent University School of Law.

While the school district could potentially defend its decision by saying it even-handedly grants and denies opt-outs, the school’s argument that the decision doesn’t apply in California is “just silly business,” Edmonds said. “This is the Supreme Court of the United States. This rule applies.”

A ruling in favor of the Taylors would put California and other states on notice that curriculum requirements must also accommodate religious objections, said John Ketcham, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

“A ruling for the Taylors would confirm that Mahmoud has teeth and is not limited to one state,” Ketcham continued. “Where instruction substantially interferes with the religious development of children, districts would be compelled to provide parental notice and an opt-out.”