Since securing a conservative supermajority, the Supreme Court has been a beacon of controversy among the American people. From rolling back constitutionally-protected abortion to extending gun ownership rights, the decisions made in the land’s highest court have found their way into already polarized political discourse. Religion is no exception to this trend. The Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts since 2005, has not seen an increase in the number of religious cases [1]. However, this court has ruled in favor of religious interests at a much higher rate than its predecessors. Some Americans fear that we are witnessing an end to the foundational principle of the separation of church and state. Major news outlets’ headlines point to a rise in Christian influence under the Roberts Court, and how judicial bias is “dismantling the Separation of Church and State” [2]. However, these headlines fail to truly capture the impact of recent Supreme Court rulings on the standing of religion. The Supreme Court’s position on religion extends equally to all Americans, regardless of their beliefs. Recent rulings indicate that enhanced religious freedom reinforces secular governance rather than contradicting it.

          The Roberts Court’s detractors claim that its rulings sanction Christian nationalism: a belief that this nation was founded as and should continue to be a Christian nation [3]. Yet, the Court’s decisions are free of any favoritism toward Christianity. In fact, what is arguably the Court’s most controversial ruling this year favored a Muslim plaintiff. 

          In 2023, Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland eliminated the option for a religious opt-out from its LGBTQ+-inclusive reading curriculum [4]. Though religious objections had previously been accommodated, the district decided that notifying parents about sensitive content and allowing exceptions was too disruptive for schools. Parents of various faiths, including Muslim, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox, objected to mandatory instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity. After being denied in claims of religious freedom and parental rights at the local, state, and federal levels, Tamer Mahmoud—a Montgomery County school district parent and Muslim-American—petitioned the Supreme Court. 

          In Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), the Supreme Court found that exposing young children to LGBTQ+ storybooks without parent notification or the possibility of an opt-out was unconstitutional [5]. As Justice Samuel Alito explains in the majority opinion, the Court did not take issue with the nature of the curriculum, but found its compulsory nature to pose a “very real threat of undermining” the religious freedom of parents. Ultimately, the school board’s claim that administrative burden was enough to justify its actions did not withstand the degree of scrutiny granted to explicit constitutional rights. Schools are allowed to restrict individual rights, such as limiting parents’ ability to visit their students during school, when the alternative harms educational goals. In Mahmoud, the school board claimed that opt-outs created a similarly unnecessary administrative burden. However, unlike instances of undue burden, the burden in this case was self-imposed by schools due to their choice of educational content. The school board also argued that dissatisfied parents could transition their students to private educational institutions that better aligned with their religious beliefs. However, access to public education and all other public benefits cannot reasonably dissuade the expression of a Constitutional right [6]. 

          This ruling was not just religiously neutral. It was a crucial step in avoiding bias toward secularism. In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas highlights the ideological conformity promoted by the school board’s policy. Outside of the LGBTQ+ books, notes Thomas, Montgomery County Public Schools allow opt-outs for curricula involving family life and sexual health, indicating a bias toward certain religious beliefs [7]. This shows that the school board’s decision was not about burden, but rather specific to one area of secular belief. By ensuring that opt-out allowances were identical for all sensitive content, the court avoided facilitating an unusual enforcement of secular ideology.

          Opponents of the Mahmoud ruling claim that the Court has created a slippery slope for parental control over curriculum design. However, in its reasoning, the Court demonstrates that not every disagreement with classroom content is valid, drawing a necessary line between inclusion and compulsion [8]. Student ages and the subjectivity of moralizing content indicated a specific degree of burden that invalidated a limitation on individual rights. Mahmoud is a narrowly tailored ruling, a quality essential for emphasizing the legal importance of First Amendment rights. 

          The lesson that should be derived from Mahmoud v. Taylor is not one of religious supremacy. In fact, it creates a clear procedure for the further integration of inclusive educational materials with individual freedom. By backing parent notification and opt-out systems, the ruling lays a legal framework for other school districts to follow. Such policies facilitate the coexistence of public education and individual freedom.

          The Roberts Court has both provided unbiased religious protections and elevated minority religious groups whose issues were previously limited to lower courts. By the end of its 2025 term, the Court is expected to rule in favor of its first-ever Rastafarian plaintiff [9]. In 2020, Damon Landor was sentenced to five months in prison for drug-related charges. The Nazarine Vow required Landor, a devout Rastafarian, never to cut his hair. In the last month of his sentence, Landor was transferred to Louisiana’s Raymond Laborde Correctional Center. Although he had not previously faced issues with his hair, Landor carried a copy of a 2017 federal circuit court ruling that permitted Rastafarian inmates to maintain their long hair. Despite providing this document to prison officials, his head was forcibly shaved whilst he was handcuffed and held down. Landor sued the warden and guards for violating the 2000 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. This law prohibits the government from restricting the religious exercise of imprisoned individuals, even if an exception to a general rule arises, unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest [10]. While state and appellate courts agreed that there had been no justifiable reason to cut Landor’s hair, they rejected his suit on the basis that the guards were acting in an individual, rather than official, capacity. However, based on the Supreme Court’s recent trend of championing individual religious freedom, experts suggest that the Court will validate Landor’s suit and allow him to demand compensation from individual actors [11]. As Fifth Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham points out in his dissenting opinion, financial damages are an essential remedy to a blatant and irreparable violation of religious exercise [12].

          If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Landor, it will emphasize the legal validity of individual religious freedom. By affirming individual monetary responsibility as a potential response to serious religious rights denials, the Court could create further protections for those who fear mistreatment due to their use of these rights. This decision would not just be a victory for the five other Rastafarians who have sued Louisiana correctional institutions for the same offense. It would enhance the individual liberties that defend all religious people from civil rights violations.

          Even if the Supreme Court does not promote a single religion’s agenda, an extension of government control over religious practice could threaten secular governance. However, the Court’s rulings demonstrate an aversion to increased governmental authority over religion. The Court has reduced state influence on individual practices independent of their religious contexts. In Groff v. DeJoy (2023), the Court unanimously supported a United States Postal Service (U.S.P.S.) employee who requested not to work on Sundays in observance of his Christian faith. In its ruling, the Court clarifies the parameters of “undue hardship” in relation to limitations on religious exercise [13]. The Court applied more scrutiny to interferences with individual freedom, echoing its stance in Mahmoud. Rather than adhering to the previous precedent of de minimis—or minimal—burden on employers permitting their refusal of religious accommodations, the Court ruled that only “substantial” costs would be grounds for such refusals. Rather than consolidating religious control, this decision restored power to every American citizen by promoting the right to exercise one’s beliefs.

          It is no secret that the American judiciary has taken a strong stance on religion. Additionally, religious representation on the Court is disproportionate to the American people. This imbalance does not unequivocally favor Christians, despite what many may believe. While Catholics and Jews are overrepresented, Protestants are underrepresented, and Atheist Americans receive no representation at all [14]. In contrast to elected offices, however, ideological representation has no theoretical relevance to judicial roles [15]. Elected officials in the U.S. Senate much more closely resemble America’s religious landscape [16]. This difference speaks to the distinct roles the legislative and judicial branches play in national politics. Judges are human, and it is naive to assume they hold no personal convictions. Nevertheless, evidence shows that jurisprudence is not determined by religion. From Roe v. Wade to Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Court has repeatedly demonstrated its aim to target weak precedents in all areas of law [17, 18]. In the case of religion, however, addressing incorrect rulings does not remove secular protections. Instead, the Court’s decisions in pressing religious cases more transparently outline where freedoms do and do not apply. A focus on religion has highlighted, not blurred, the line between church and state.

          At a time of great polarization on the federal level, religious freedom has been vilified as a political weapon. Nonetheless, this is an area where the Roberts Court has upheld a clear and unbiased stance that preserves secular governance: personal choice is a sacred part of the American experience.