Parental Rights on Trial: What South Africa Can Learn from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in Mahmoud v Taylor

Parental Rights on Trial: What South Africa Can Learn from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in Mahmoud v Taylor

‍

Introduction

A battle over who shapes the moral universe of children — parents or the state — is intensifying worldwide. In South Africa, a coalition of diverse religious groups and Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) has taken a strong stand against a Department of Basic Education (DBE) teacher training toolkit that introduces transgender ideology in early childhood education. At the heart of the dispute is the state’s attempt to embed contested views about gender identity in the formative years of a child’s life, without parental consultation, consent, or opt-out provision.

This local dispute resonates strikingly with a major legal decision handed down by the United States Supreme Court on 27 June 2025. In Mahmoud v Taylor, the Court ruled that public schools must inform parents and allow them to opt out of curriculum content that conflicts with their religious beliefs. In doing so, it sent a clear message: parental rights are not subordinate to the state’s educational preferences, especially when it comes to matters of moral or religious significance.

Common ground: the role of parents in moral education

Both the US and South African contexts revolve around the same fundamental tension: who has the final say in shaping a child’s values during their most impressionable years?

In Mahmoud, the plaintiffs, who were religious parents, objected to their children being exposed to books and lessons promoting LGBTQ+ themes without being notified or offered the chance to opt out. The Court agreed. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, made it clear that compulsory exposure to ideologically loaded material without parental consent limits the free exercise of religion and violates constitutional protections.

Similarly, FOR SA argues that the DBE’s ECE Toolkit introduces controversial content about gender identity to children as young as four, under the guise of “inclusion”, “gender sensitivity”, and preventing GBV. This falls foul of national education policy, particularly the 1995 White Paper on Education, which confirms parental choice and the State’s duty to consult, especially when the religious or cultural basis of a child’s education is impacted.

Ideological indoctrination by another name?

In both cases, the state’s education authorities insisted that they were simply promoting diversity and inclusion. But what happens when “inclusion” becomes a vehicle for enforcing ideological conformity?

In the US, the Supreme Court recognised that teaching LGBTQ+ themes to primary school children — without transparency or consultation — was not neutral content. It was an act that could substantially interfere with the religious formation of the child.

In South Africa, the DBE denies that the Toolkit is compulsory. Even if the Toolkit is only a voluntary support resource, the DBE’s policy authority and funding leverage could place considerable pressure on schools to implement the Toolkit. In a sense, this could effectively make its use obligatory. Educators who complete DBE-run training are expected to embed the Toolkit’s approaches in their lessons. Of concern is whether non-compliance could result in professional consequences, including disciplinary action under existing professional-conduct rules.

Developmental danger

One of the most serious concerns in both the South African and US contexts is the age of the children involved. In Mahmoud, the curriculum targeted primary school learners. In South Africa, the Toolkit is aimed at children aged 0 to 9 — arguably the most sensitive stage for the development of a secure identity.

International precedent is instructive. The 2024 UK Cass Review, the 2025 US HHS Report, policy reversals in Finland, Sweden, and France, and tighter eligibility criteria in Norway, all highlight the same trend: early intervention based on gender identity theory is not only scientifically dubious, but it can also be harmful.

Disregarding parents comes at a price

In the UK, the “No Outsiders” program, which introduced similar themes into primary education, sparked large-scale protests. Eventually, the schools backed down, acknowledging the need to consult parents before introducing such content. In the US, Mahmoud now stands as the highest legal precedent affirming the right of parents to opt out of state-mandated moral instruction.

South Africa risks heading in the opposite direction.

FOR SA warns that a growing number of parents could withdraw their children from schools that implement the Toolkit. This would be a tragedy for early learning and social cohesion. Children thrive when families and educators work in partnership, not when one side is marginalised or ignored.

Safeguarding, not silencing

Both Mahmoud v Taylor and the South African response to the ECE Toolkit raise critical questions about the role of education in a diverse society. Can the state use the schoolroom to advance a single moral narrative? Must families conform to secular ideologies that conflict with their faith?

The US Supreme Court has answered firmly: no. The state must inform, respect, and empower parents, not bypass them. South Africa would do well to heed this ruling, not only as a legal analogy, but as a warning.

At the end of the day, protecting the right of parents to shape the values of their children is not an obstacle to education — it is the very foundation of it.

‍